I have immensely enjoyed my time at AEI working on public opinion (pretty much as apolitical as you can get) and at one of the 'Intern Happenings", there was a lecture by AEI Scholar and Theologian Michael Novak to talk about religion, philosophy, and the our current society. He said a lot of stuff that I didn't particularly agree with but made one interesting point towards the end of his lecture that raised my eyebrows. Basically, the point had to do with how atheists reconcile concepts like human rights and equality when they do not belive in inalienable rights endowed by a "creator." It was a very interesting philosophical question that I hope we could discuss.

Question(s) for Debate:

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

I don’t know if such is a singular philosophy really. To trace such through the ages would be a lot more then I have the time for also.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

I did not know you had to believe in a god or gods or something super natural to accept human rights.

gordo, you are missing the whole point of the question. I am talking philosophically here. Its easy to say that you believe in human rights but the question is why do you believe in it? Is it it because you believe everyone has inalienable rights or for some other reason? I am not making the statement that belief in a creator is a necessity to believe in human rights. I am asking for debate on the philosophical justification from both believers and non-believers.

Well, being an agnostic I don’t know if I can really answer your question then. I mean from how you worded the question, which might be a mistake I made, it sounded like human rights could only exist from a theological point of view, which at any rate I would strongly disagree with for various reasons.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

At the risk of over-simplifying what seems an overwhelming endeavor (at least for myself), I must say that whatever the philosophical foundation is, it must include some concept of a supreme being operating under a set of ideals for mankind. Whether we reach consensus on how those ideals are to be executed is entirely another question.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

I don't see how they can (though I am open to suggestion). Any argument from an atheistic point of view must include this notion of what is practically good for most people most of the time (which opens up an entire new can of worms). This by definition cannot be based on a morality (i.e., standard set forth by a creator) but rather on who can muster the most convincing argument. As such, many of mankinds worst atrocities can only really be described as "decisions based on less than ideal practicalities".

NOTE: I do realize this is much too simple-minded to leave it at that. However, I do want to contribute to what I consider a very important topic.




gordo - the question is quite simple to begin addressing. As an agnostic can you not make a case for why all should be guaranteed certain fundamental human rights?

Well according to your post I cant because I don’t subscribe to a super natural authority. Maybe people use human rights because its a benefit to them to do such, its just a thought.

Whether you chose to articulate a case for this at this time is certainly your business. In deference to your intellectual integrity I have to believe you have some sort of formulation beyond simply "its a benefit to do such..." Should you decide to engage in this debate, which people's benefit are you referring to?

This gets deep into religious topics that aren't accepted here but I will briefly touch on them and hopefully the thread will not be locked if everyone keeps things civil (which is why I believe religious topics aren't tolerated b/c it's easy to start a flame war).

There is no god. Now, I can understand why religious folks wonder how someone without rules set for them by a higher power can ask "were does good come from if not from a higher power". I could write a book on this subject, but will try to sum it up.

Good comes from within yourself. I think the easiest way to sum it up as that an athiest can believe in the golden rule just as someone with faith can. It's simple really, I wouldn't want anyone to shoot my brother, steal from me, have sex with my wife and various other actions. This is were the "right from wrong" comes from, not from omg im gonna go to a place of eternal torture if I don't do what this guy over here tells me to do, it's simply I will treat other persons as I would want to be treated.

Like what most Atheists follow, logic, it's easy for an Atheist to abide by a certain moral standard because of that logic. Of course not all believe the same path just as persons of faith do not. Justifying things for many people can conclude in killing innocent people and other things that modern society may see as "wrong", and in my opinion following the faithful opinion is just as likely to lead to that, if not more, as rejecting the theory of god.

In short "treat others as you would like to be treated" the Golden Rule can be followed by anyone really if they believe in a god, gods or no god(s).

Leder - I have to say that is probably the most profound, yet unanswered question of our time. Plutarch tried to get a handle on the "Justice" part of the equation, Eramus (sp, of course ) Voltaire on the right to rule, Hobbes, Locke, well, they all tried to explain, as best they could- why men should be "free" - in thier own unique way.

My own personal philosophy- and I have no doubt I am paraphrasing in a bad way, another philosopher, or even one mentioned- in some quote or another-

but here goes-

Man is sentient. Why are we sentient? Who knows- but it leads to other questions "what is good" - "what is bad"- and, in human history- that natural attempt to even MAKE that distinction "good" "bad"- instead of instinct, we make logical thought. We don't simply think in terms, like a, oh, wolf, and think "I need to eat"
"eating done- sleep, now, procreate" and really not look into issues much deeper than that,

So we make up contructs sometimes very flawed, to answer that burning question- "good" "bad"- and along with that comes the concept of "freedom". It is hard to find a human being that doesn't associate "freedom" as good- though, admittedly, in most folks they mean "well, I should be totally free, everyone else needs laws to govern them )

So, the natural law folks would say that "freedom" is a natural "good" state of mankind, and the best goal of mankind is the most amount of freedom to all adult citizens of the world, while protecting that freedom further to assure that no one can usurp that freedom.

So- the devil comes out in the details. You can ask Hitler, and I am sure, in his mind, his particular breed of "freedom" was the correct one- same with Stalin, but the same with Thomas Jefferson or Ghandi.

So I think that in the sense that mankind is endowed with freedom of thought from birth-that this is the best, most appropriate endevour for mankind- to ensure all humans are created equal in the eyes of all laws governing human behavior, and deserve the equal measure of freedom.

I am sure most would agree here with that statement

but we would debate how to go about it.

I will try to be careful to avoid all discussion here as to whether any particular religious belief is true or false.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

For the purposes of this question (as opposed to the second one), let me go ahead and make the assumption that human rights are the direct result of a deity. Even if we accept this as an axiom, it doesn't get us very far. How do we decide what these rights may be, and how they are to be applied?

A simple example is the dictum "Thou shalt not kill." Even if we grant this as a divine command, how do we interpret it? Never taking the life of a human being under any circumstances? Some would say this, but many do not. (Self-defense, warfare, capital punishment, euthanasia, and so on.) If we say that this commandment really means "Thou shalt not murder," this only compounds the problem. What does murder mean except "wrongful killing?" We're back to square one; when is the killing wrongful?

My point is that, even if we accept human rights as divine in origin, our imperfect human nature makes it mandatory for us to define them for ourselves, as if they were not.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

In the most literal sense, perhaps there really are no "fundamental" human rights. After all, it's easy to kill, torture, imprison, and enslave our fellow creatures. In this sense, your right to life and liberty vanishes without a trace. You have no more "right," in this sense, to defy a bullet than you have to defy gravity.

It might be better, than, to think of "how should human beings be treated" rather than "rights." It can be useful, of course, to use the word "rights" as a sort of shorthand. If somebody says "people have the right to free speech" she is really saying "we should allow people to speak freely." Our practices are more important than our theory.

It is not uncommon for atheists to be questioned as to why they simply do not do whatever they want, with no regard for others. In the famous words of Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Without God, all things are permitted." However, common experience tells us that atheists are no more likely to harm others than theists. (Let me deal here quickly with the issue of the evils done by official atheistic regimes, which is sometimes used to suggest the ethical superiority of theism to atheism. For one thing, no government should have an official opinion on religious questions, and that certainly includes official atheism. For another, these regimes did their horrors in the name of the ideology of Marxism or some variation thereof. In all cases, the regimes treated this ideology as a religion in every way except supernaturalism.)

So why are most atheists decent people? For one thing, they share the basic human characteristic of empathy. This trait comes about in anyone who has been raised in any way which allows her even a small taste of human sympathy and kindness. Once this basic trait has been acquired, the atheist can use experience and reason to judge which "rights" should be granted to her fellow creatures.

As an example, my own personal ethical system is based on the axiom that suffering is an evil. I call this an "axiom" because I cannot "prove" that one should prefer to avoid suffering. (This is no weakness of atheism. The theist cannot "prove" that one should, for example, prefer Heaven to Hell, but accepts it as obvious. In the same way, I accept it as obvious that suffering is to be avoided.) Because I was given at least some small degree of empathy, the suffering of others causes me to suffer. This causes me to wish to avoid causing the suffering of others. (Obviously one cannot prevent all suffering, and one must sometimes accept a smaller degree of suffering to avoid a greater one.)

As a corollary to my axiom, I come to the conclusion that the degree to which one should treat something as an object of ethical concern -- the degree to which it has "rights" -- is directly proportional to its ability to experience suffering. The dead cannot have rights; rocks and plants cannot have rights; the rights of animals vary, based on the complexity of their central nervous systems; human beings have the greatest rights, because they have the most profound ability to suffer.

As to what these "rights" are exactly, that is a matter of debate, and the reason why politics exists at all.

there is no super natural force at work making people treat each other with equality or respect, just as there is no super natural power at work forcing some people to live well and others in horror. Its all a product of our doing and our thought. Now we can attribute such to whatever, but the reality is if people stop doing something, or start doing something, in that way it becomes real, just as the multitude of religions that at one point were real to many and are now items in the dictionary with the term mythology next to them.

So from my standpoint I really don’t understand the question. To me the human existence is a product of our nature and our nurture, nothing more. Having a system that has equality for all to it is a benefit to all people in that system, or at an individual level it prospers you to act in such a way. If such behavior in itself is intrinsically natural such as genetic for example or not is a question that like many aspects of our behavior cannot be studied currently. So you are left with more garbage logic on the situation at large that is largely mutable infinitely, or subjective realities that always fail in due time to really make truth evident or even be to terribly lasting.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?
It's a simple variation of the golden rule, those things we would appreciate for ourselves must be allowed to others.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?
Empathy is all that is required. You don't have to believe in fairy tales to see when someone has been denied fair treatment and to know that you wouldn't want to be treated like that yourself. Why should freedom and equality have to be derived from some kind of mystical authority figure? Are we not all the same to begin with? How is that not deserving of equal treatment in and of itself?
In fact, religion has been used to argue against human rights, equality and freedom from day one. Religion was used to justify slavery, jim crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sodomy laws...

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

Concepts of human rights, equality and freedom are relatively new to humans, and they are definitely not anywhere near as old as religion in general or even monotheism in particular. They have only been around since societies have evolved to the point that they can function well without sources of free labor (slaves) and/or some similar type of caste system**. Consider that the Bible (for instance) says nothing about slavery other than to treat your slaves decently. Wives and children were historically property, and they still are in certain parts of the world, even in societies that are heavily religious, perhaps particularly in those societies...I'm reminded of an observation that I read about from a soldier in Iraq. He witnessed a man driving a truck in the rain. His four wives were huddled together for warmth in the back of the truck and his dog was sitting next to him in the passenger seat. I'd bet this man bent his knee to Allah every day.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

I was raised by atheists, so I feel I can reasonably answer this question. Again, concepts of human rights are new. Their foundation is generally mutual benefit and potential adverse consequences to doing otherwise (which is basically the same for believers, with an extra layer of assumed accountability). I'm nice to you so that you will be nice to me (IOW I recognize your rights so that you will recognize mine), or alternately I'm nice (and recognize your rights) because if I didn't there would be consequences because society protects its citizens, as it must to exist.

**Edited to add: I think it's pertinent to also consider that human rights, equality, and freedom were not even recognized at the time the Declaration of Independence was written (for all of its fine phraseology about creator endowed inherent rights), as they are today. The founding fathers themselves owned slaves, women were also chattel, minorities had no rights, the protections of the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the state governments (abolitionist literature was illegal to even possess in the South).

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?
The concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom are defined by what we have learned as humans throughout history. We are intelligent beings and learn from our expierences and our mistakes. Watching humans interact with one another gives us a collective definition of what rights we should have, what is meant by equality, and what to what extent do we have freedom.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?It should be the Christian/religious types that must reconcile their belief in human rights, not atheists/agnostics. Philosophy is the process of studying and investigation of ethical standards. Human rights today are not what they were during the days of the Greek philosophers and may be very different 1000 years from today. Where as religion is a faith, a process not of learning, but in believing. One cannot prove the existance of a Supreme Being, they simply believe one exists. The ethics in the Bible evolved starting with the laws set forth in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy to the teachings of Solomon in his Proverbs to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus contradicted the Old Testament during his teachings when he talked about turning the cheek as opposed to Eye for an Eye. There was a shift in understanding, unfortunately, that shift has been forgotten by many.

I think perhaps my questions need further clarification. Obviously they are loaded and not easily discerned, but they come from a strain of though that I had upon pondering Mr. Novak's statements.

Basically, human rights is something that is generally accepted in the Western world and in a number of religions. This idea originally comes from an idea that everyone was created equal by a supreme being. Obviously if everyone is created in God's image, everyone should be treated the same way.

An interesting point to criticize this relationship was made by a fellow intern who commented that if we see human rights and a belief in a creator to be one and the same, then our belief in human rights is only as strong as our faith in god.

But to counter some of the comments thus far, some would argue that we have concepts such as human rights because it is in our interest. We do not want people to hurt or kill us and thus we will not hurt or kill them. But what if the preservation of human rights is not in a person's interest? For instance (talking state of nature here) what if one particular person is very strong and would be able to dominate others? Then obviously the restraints of human rights would be seen as arbitrary and not so important.

So to reiterate the point of the question...we all use terms like human rights, equality, freedom, and justice without understanding the philosophical foundations and justifications for such terms. We just accept them. I think that reflection on why is essential to our society and our future.

No matter what the origin of these terms might be, the cold, hard fact is that you are controlled by whoever wields the power. If you're lucky enough to live under a system where there is representation and a division of power, you will be granted more rights than if you do not.

It might also be kept in mind that it has not always been a basic dictum of Western religion that everyone is created equal. The notions of the "divine order" and "the divine right of kings" have at least as much history behind them, and I suspect quite a bit more.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

The concepts of human rights, equality and freedom do indeed come from philosophy, mostly Greek and Roman, but with some earlier and some Eastern infuences. They don't really come from religion, though religious philosphers have found scriptural references and interpretations that chime with the ideas.

I'd say the very foundation of all such concepts is the so-called "Golden Rule" (variously expressed as "do as you would be done by", "be nice to people on the way up because you don't know who you'll meet on the way down" and various others) was widely known in the ancient world, as far afield as China. It is such a powerful and pervasive idea that it's hard to know if it was expressed once by one person and then caught on, or was arrived at independently by many people at various times. I think more likely the latter.

It is this idea, which if anything somewhat pre-dates the Judeo-Christian idea that man is created in God's image, that plants the seed of equality and freedom.

Probably the first concrete expression of ideas we would now call human rights, equality and freedom comes from the Declaration of Independence. The ideals they codified came mostly from the European, and particularly the Scottish Enlightenment. They did not come from the Christian Bible, or any other scriptural texts. Indeed, the philosphical roots came from "pagan" polytheists.

Being men of their time, they themselves chose to use phrases like "endowed by a Creator", in part because they believed in them, but also (surely) because they were shrewd men who realised that the population was as a whole probably more religious than they were. References to a creator would "play well" (in modern parlance), spread their ideas more quickly, and maximise their support; something they knew they would need, as they expected the British colonial power to attempt to put down their rebellion.

Oh, and by the way, the bald assertion in the Declaration and other such documents that they come from God does not, as far as I am aware, give them any status as religious sacraments. Nor do they even specify that this notional "creator" is any kind of Supreme Being as opposed to a natural process such as, say, Darwinian evolution. One could say that using the word "creator", rather than specifically citing "God", was somewhat unusual for the times, and probably reflects that at least some of the Framers we not believers in a Supreme Being, either it's a compromise position, or they were hedging their bets.

And certainly, being white, slave-owning MEN, the notion of the universality of human rights was something that eluded them. Universality of human rights - that they apply to absolutely everybody, no matter who they are or what they've done - was something that only formally arose in the aftermath of WW2, and only then in response to the horrors of the Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, rather than as a spontaneous eruption of goodwill.

It's necessary in invent concepts like rights and freedoms because, as human beings, we tend to assume them for ourselves, and ignore them for others unless their is some external restraint.

In summary, the foundations of the ideas in question are profoundly human in origin. And, to keep them universal, it's better to derive them from non-religious humanist roots and keep them well away from religion; historically, it is a short series of steps from "these ideas come from our God" to "anyone who doesn't believe in our God doesn't deserve our rights".

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

Your question assumes that there is a a priori logical link between theism and human rights. As Mrs Pigpen and Victoria Silverwolf have indicated, there is no such link - some of the worst violators of what we would now call human rights, the least equalising and the worst at upholding personal freedoms both through history and today have been those with strong religious convictions.

It is not axiomatic that religious faith brings belief in human rights; the two are not linked in any meaningful way. The absence of a causal link in one direction also works in reverse; a belief in human rights can coexist perfectly happily with non-belief in a "Supreme Being" (apparently such a concept is deserving of capitalisation).

So, speaking as a functional atheist (in principle I'm agnostic, because I can't prove to myself - or anyone else - that there is no God, but I see no convincing evidence that there is one. So for all practical purposes, I'm an atheist.) your question is moot. There is nothing to reconcile, because one doesn't stem from the other.

I feel that a good majority of the principles and rights that we uphold, stem from fear.

Boy that sounded bad. Let me elaborate; we are afraid of death. That, in itself is a generally accepted fact. To be more accurate, we are afraid of the “not knowing”, the simple idea that there is one aspect of human life, that man will never comprehend, will never tame. However, we can make an admirable attempt. I am not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of religion. I am merely saying that religion, whether real or not, conveniently wrapped up a question that is inherently unanswerable. Through god, we are reassured, comforted, in the idea that we will find eternal tranquility in heaven.

And thus, do we come to the topic of human rights. Man is a very shrewd creature. He realizes that there is no reward without price. So, he concludes that if a divine being saw fit to grant him a place in paradise, he must find a way to earn it. This is where human empathy comes in. We avoid situations that would cause physical or emotional pain, in ourselves, and in others. We do this because of the idea within all off us, that good deeds are rewarded. Even atheists, although they may be somewhat more cognizant of this then their religious brethren, do good deeds, with the knowledge that the person you help today might someday help you in the near future. In the case of the religious people, of course, the reward they receive is somewhat more long term. Nonetheless, we do good for the sake of fear, although some of us are more motivated by profit. We do it to gain praise, we do it to feel good about ourselves, and sometimes we do it for money.

But in the end, we do it because we hope that whatever it is that lies on the other side, will acknowledge what we have done, once we are dead.

Mrs. P - I believe you confuse the Founding Fathers' misunderstanding about who is to be included when human rights are considered. They did indeed believe in human rights for all. Their fatal flaw was in arguing that the blacks and women were to be considered more as property rather than full humans. Reasons for this misunderstanding would most certainly include egregious, centuries-old, racism unlike we ourselves have ever seen along with a more legitimate ignorance of the "white man's" role on earth. Because an individual or group may run afoul of what we understand human rights to mean does not necessarily suggest that they did not believe in the concept.




barnaby2341 - I agree that we overtime have evolved toward a more thorough understanding of what human rights may mean. The Christian belief (or that of many other world religions) would attribute much if not all of this evolutionary progress to divine intervention.



It is the very belief in a divine creator that has served as an impetus for considering what it means to believe in human rights. A broad brush stroke of the last several thousand years paints a picture of religious men striving toward new levels of understanding.



Again, leder, your refocus nails the issue. The question is not whether a "non-believer" can think rationally about human rights but rather from whence does he claim the authority to compel another to follow? Because lots of guys have believed this way or another? Because for Group X things turned out pretty good and so I think we should do it too? Religious types claim that these rights should be inalienable (endowed from a creator) though how these beliefs were to be enforced/modeled/executed/compelled has in many cases been a disaster.




Julian - This is an interesting assertion that the ideals as codified in the Declaration were not informed by the Christian Bible? Please expand on this. I would like to know what you've been reading. To say that the ideals came from European influences begs the question doesn't it? What were many of the Europeans if not reformers of what they considered to be a rotten institution (i.e., the Catholic church)?



This is quite a shrewd assessment. Again, please inform me where you are finding that these men were not God believers? What is wrong with believing that these men were indeed inspired by God in an important way the likes of which had not been seen since the times of Jesus? That being the case, there is a common belief that the Declaration and Constitution were indeed inspired documents (or at least it would follow from my initial assertion).



Indeed the ramifications of accepting that a supreme being was the author of equality for all alluded even the framers. This is not a commentary however on the philosophical roots of equality for all (as leder posits in his opening post) but rather an evolving standard that has taken so many hundreds of years to come to fruition. We are certainly in need of even more years to figure it out!

<snip>



You have nailed on the head the almost fatal flaw of those who would believe in the divine hand of intervention. We should not allow these fine principles to morph into what you would describe as "anyone who doesn't believe in our God doesn't deserve our rights".

There is no argument from me that the concept of human rights has indeed evolved over time. Where you and I would differ is in understanding the mechanism for change. I would suggest that it is linked to a "supernatural author" (boy, how's that for trying to keep it inoffensive and generic?!!) whereas you might claim that it was simply the natural progression of mankind to evolve in this same direction.

I should just point out to begin with that I have not read any of the other posts in this thread yet...


1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

Surely it is the golden rule? "Treat others as you would like to be treated." What else is there?


2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

Easily though I am not an aetheist I am an agnostic. I wish to live a peaceful life therefore I extend that peace unto all others. How difficult is this to reconcile with aetheism? I find it harder to reconcile the golden rule with religious ideology that imposes value on humanity by virtue of divine intevention.

If a god grants rights then what happens to the rights of non believers? History tells us clearly what happens to those people. They get murdered by religious people.

Scottish Enlightenment - Wikipedia
Please refer. While some of these men were "religious" in the modern sense, some were not, and very few of them concerned themselves to the reform of the Catholic Church - they were living in a time (roughly, 1730-1800) and place (mostly Edinburgh) when the struggles between Catholicism and Protestantism were (more or less) settled and the Catholic church had lost much of its influence.

So I'm afraid you're either muddling up your time periods, or your straightforwardly assuming that all intellectual activity in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries had something to do with religion



I am finding that these men were not "God believers", if by that you mean Christians, because at least one of them are on record in his correspondence as saying so - both Franklin and Jefferson referred to themselves, or were referred to by contemporaries, as "deists" - not a recognised branch of any church or faith, but more or less in train with a modern semi-agnostic position that Jesus was a good man who was right about many things but was not remotely divine, and that the nature of God / Supreme Being / Higher Power could be more or less anything, up to and uncluding the natural processes of the universe itself (which may include evolution - we'll never know since the concept wasn't invented until some time after their deaths).

These two, at least, professed that they thought the Creator was most likely the Judeo-Christian God, but let's remember that that leaves them as open to be claimed as fellow travellers by Usama bin Laden as it does by any Christian.



Emphasis mine.

I find it interesting that you assume that I think there was anything natural about it, as that carries with it unspoken assumptions that human society is somehow directed towards human rights etc. It looks that way moving backwards, but it would be deeply mistaken to think that we can all just sit back and let it happen because God/Allah/the Flying Spaghetti Monster wills it so it will happen anyway.

A great deal of effort has been expended and blood shed to get us to the modest expression of the rights and dignity of the individual that we have today, and all governments - even in the "divinely inspired" USA - will quite happily, and with the acqueiscence if not the support of the populace, curtail, abridge, or abolish altogether rights and privileges which we won't miss until they're gone.

Who needs divine inspiration if He or She is going to make even the smallest advances so painful and drawn out and subject to remission? For all the practical purposes of government and democracy, the government and the people are better off (in my opinion) assuming that there is no divinity and that any advances they make will have to be argued for and won by dint of human reason and effort. Whether the inspiration for those efforts is divine or not is moot - God does not do his own campaigning.

The alternative is to sit around waiting for some new revelation - good luck with that. To get an unfair tax abolished, or a spending bill passed, you have to campaign and organise, not wait around on Mount Sinai waiting for some new stone tablets to appear.

Flying spaghetti monster? how dare you compare major deities to an animate italian food staple! It is detrimental to the very principles that all religious people hold dear. For shame! Pastafarians such as you are a disgrace to all those who believe in any god.

And besides, the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) is much more authentic. Much more.

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them"

Julian - I could certainly use a little refinement with early American & European history. Thank you for the link. Just a few comments however...



I agree there is a risk in this.




I am not sure then how you would describe this steady march toward a more global, liberal understanding of human rights. Isn't this what we would expect over time (i.e., the "natural" result of so much effort)? And yes I was suggesting divine intervention in this process though I did not mean to imply that we could "just sit back and let it happen". I find that a very rudimentary characterization of my claim. Did you see it as a natural conclusion to what I had stated earlier or was this a bit of your own bias?




I agree there is a risk that a more fundamentalist strain could indeed cause many problems. Please do not forget that there are a good many religious peoples in the US who would find this potential trend abhorrent.




This returns us to leder's question. If there is no recognition of a supreme being infusing mankind over the millennia with a desire for equality among all people then from whence do you claim your authority regards to your concept of human rights?





Again, you give too little consideration for a more nuanced understanding of divine intervention. As characterized here, your's is a school boy's rendition that leaves little room for debate. Trivialization of the premise of Christianity in this way is almost a mockery. This is certainly not my understanding.

Finally, I struggle with any argument for generally accepted human rights that is devoid of an "author". I cannot see how one could criticize a Hitler (or any number of other despots) as an evil man without some appreciation for a standard that resonates within all of us but that finds it's origin outside of the material world. Otherwise, couldn't the likes of Hitler simply be accused of pursuing a little more selfish understanding
of equality? That being the case, he may be faulted for not understanding the practicalities of his own decisions but certainly not of being "evil".

In the same regard, many of who claim that their belief in a divine being to be the "true and right one". When you are born your rearing has a large impact on those beliefs. I can claim that my right from wrong to be from a divine power and of course all else is wrong, it is also this path that can more easily lead to not accepting other ideals and making compromises. So who is to say your divine god is the true one and not another persons divine god? The mind creates the god not the other way around, and if you believe it to be the other way around that closes the mind to compromise. So is it really better for humanity to believe that their personal "right from wrong" comes from a divine being?

Just as the premise of this thread insists that it cannot be good if not from a divine power I submit that good comes from human choices otherwise compromise and "progress" if you will comes at a much slower pace.

The golden rule does not require a belief in divine power.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

For me, the quandary of accepting the atheist (or agnostic) point of view is why do we limit rights to humans? Why are chickens, cows, tuna or wheat plants any less deserving of the right not to be killed and eaten?

Now, you may say that survival dictates that we consume other living things. That this is the natural state of nature. They must suffer so that we may prosper and grow.

But why exclude other humans from this "survival of the fittest" viewpoint? Why, specifically, are other humans immune to the "you suffer so that I may prosper" mindset?

Of course, I am taking this to the logical extreme, but the point remains: on what basis can you claim that all humans are equally deserving of rights but other species are not? Can an atheist or agnostic make the claim that humans are superior without doing so on faith (i.e. without concrete proof)?

Or is the argument that we are the pinnacle of evolution and thus the high point in nature? Does this give us superiority over bird and beast?

While it seems logical that the Golden Rule (boiled down to: don't harm me and I won't harm you) does not require a spiritual basis, limiting it to humans does require something. Why are humans superior? Why are we the shepards of the globe and thus responsible for fixing the natural habitats of spotted toads? We could kill them for food, but not ruin their habitat? Seems inconsistent.

In the past, I have paid some attention to Victoria Silverwolf's philosophy of causing the least suffering. However, since we cannot measure the suffering of animals, we are making some awfully big assumptions if we conclude that killing animals for food causes less suffering than denying somebody the right to vote based on their sex or skin color.

For the same reason most animals don't eat their own kind. Empathy.
Modern culture disconnects people from the fact that what they are eating was once a living creature, it's prepackaged and sealed at the supermarket now. (One reason I honestly believe every person should at least once in their life hunt their own food).
Vegetables are living creatures. If we accept that it is inconsistent to eat animals how is it not inconsistent to eat vegetables?
They are not the same as us. Another person is observably the same as we are, animals are not. Morally, yes we should minimize the suffering of all creatures when possible, but they are not people.

1) What is the philosophical foundation for the concepts of human rights, equality, and freedom?

None of these things has an objective existence, but they represent social conditions that many would consider to be desirable. I certainly do. But these ideas have no more authority than the power of people, organized into a society, can give them. The ground of existence will not shatter, nor will the sky crack open, if it ultimately comes to pass that tyranny reigns upon the earth.

2) Can atheists reconcile their non-belief in a Supreme Being and a belief in fundamental human rights? How (philosophically)?

This is merely one of a very sad and tired class of questions of the form, "How can atheists reconcile their non-belief with X?" the unstated assumption being that without God, there could be no X. Since, however, there is no God, it is very clear that no actually existing X requires one. In the current case, human rights, equality and freedom do not originate in the supposed divine, but in the ambitions that human beings have for the constitution of their society.

It is perhaps worth noting that these particular ambitions, which many people wrongly imagine to embody some sort of univeral moral verity, are quite modern, and existed nowhere more than about 300 years ago. The widespread worship of God, however, existed many hundreds of years before that. It was firmly held during much of that time that the absolute rule of kings was God's idea.

Perhaps it is merely that it took God a long time to think of liberty, equality and fraternity. Much more reasonable is that forms of social organization are entirely historical in orgin, and like everything else in this world, stand in no need of divine explanation.

I agree that there are some rationales that can be reached, Grendel. But on what basis do we decide that humans, homo sapiens, should be treated differently than other living things. And why the segregation of rights between different animals? Why can I go to jail for strangling my cat, but if I flush my goldfish down the toilet nobody would care?

In other words: philisophically how can we assign greater rights to humans and differing levels of "rights" to animals?

Well, I have an ambition to live in a world (or at least that in future there will be a world) characterized by liberty, equality and fraternity among human beings. While I do my best to avoid causing pain to animals, I have no similar ambition to live in a world where animals are treated as brethren, where meat is not eaten, and where animals and their products are not otherwised used. On the contrary, I would hope that it would be possible for everyone to enjoy a good steak now and then. It is as simple as that. There are no inalienable rights, there are only subjective beliefs that certain modes of social interraction are more worthy than others.

I think it really does come down to empathy. We treat animals that demonstrate what seem to be human behaviors to us better than we treat other animals. While i generally think we should strive to treat animals better frankly it isn't a major issue for me because they aren't us. We can see ourselves in the position of a person whose rights are violated, we can't really do the same with animals.

From an evolutionary standpoint, people are soft and defenseless. We should be at the bottom of the foodchain. Co-operation is the one advantage we have. Treating each other fairly is what is best for the species.

yeah that and language, reason, the ability to make and use tools - oh and the thumb thing

Trying to stick to the topic:

Why are all humans deserving of human rights? Why are they owed such things as due process, security, equality, or political rights?

From a naturalistic standpoint, animals certainly do give members of their own species preferential treatment to a certain point, but when push comes to shove its every dog for himself. But even within species, there is the same types of alpha male dominance, matriarchal social structures, runts of the litter dying first and other of the same behaviors found in human society.

So what puts human society above those of the animal kingdom? Why can a lion dominate his pride, drive off his enemies, and eat first (from the food felled by the females) but a human cannot? What, philosophically, forces man to live by different standards than animals?

I think Amlord hit the nail on the head as to why I believe religion for the most part has not only held humanity back but also does more harm than good and you also make my point for me.

When it comes down to it "who am I" and "under what authority" does my ideals come from? If the answer in your mind is that it comes from a divine order then you will be that much more determined to force your will upon others and not to make compromises that could pave the way for peace or progress. Just look back through history and there are numerous examples of religion holding back the progress of humanity, not to mention persecution. It's why many people can justify blowing themselves up in a mall full of children and if you remember our friend Jeffrey Lungrin he used the bible to justify his actions... not to say that Atheists are the "moral standard" of the world but that religious ideals are much easier to become fanatics because of the belief that they are under the order of god.

Then the notion that the religion is so good because of all the charity and good deeds that comes from the church. I think this is such an ingenious way of tricking people, they think that it's "gods work" when in fact they themselves not god are the ones giving charity. If you need a god to give charity then what does that say about your character?



The answer is simple all humans are not deserving of the same rights. Many humans in the US don't have nearly as many rights as others and we certainly do not give those same rights of due process to many people that most of us are detached from in Iraq that are considered "collateral damage" or "suspected terrorists" that we decide to bomb without due process etc...



Humans are animals and it's a matter of perspective if we are "superior" to animals. Just because I don't have a problem eating a cow doesn't mean I know with certainty that im superior to a cow. We've had many discussions about this in the past without any solid universally accepted conclusions. Of course I could say that I am smarter than a cow and I can kill a cow but does that make me superior?

Nope, but I like eating cows so I do. I don't think I need to give a cow the same rights as other humans but then again there are a lot of people that give cows god status so what do I know? If they want to do that, that's fine with me as long as they don't try to force me to view it their way through gunpoint then that's ok. It's all a matter of perspective and respect for others even if they do not agree with you is a human trait that religion has suppressed throughout history and still does.

I haven't any quarrel with your opening paragraph. IMO, your response addresses something different however. The central premise of the thread is again, from whence do you claim authority in compelling mankind to live a certain type of ideal? I do not believe this thread contemplates whether an atheist can arrive at sound moral principals on "his own steam" as it were or whether he can approximate the ideals espoused by a supreme being. This would be ludicrous to suggest as evidenced by many of the posters here.

I'll go even further and say that due, in part, to the contributions of many an atheist we have the enlightened principals we have today. Again, no quarrel here. It is interesting though that the finest minds in Christianity (and many other world religions) along with those who do not claim a belief in a supreme being find considerable agreement regards to human rights. The first group would claim the steady hand of divine intervention as the prime mechanism for change and the other group would not. Is it possible Vampiel that the only difference is that I recognize His influence in forming your worthy desire for human rights and you do not?

I would like to thank vanguard for his correct clarifications of my original question. Its obvious that the wording I used was probably not the best at fully explaining the purpose of the thread but it really does have to do with where these ideals derive their authority over mankind. Amlord,as well as others, have brought up many salient points to this philosophical debate and has made me think even harder on the subject.

Once again to add some flavor to this debate, I can't help but think of Nietzsche's Master/Slave Morality that he writes about. He sees these values we have as Slave Moralities that are based on nothingness. People label him as a nihilist...but he labels us nihilists! Equality? Freedom? This is the type of morality that was favored by the weakest groups because it was a resentment of the dominance of the master classes. In this sense, equality and freedom have no more moral weight than slavery or authoritarianism.

Obviously there is a lot of talk about the "Golden Rule," where because I do not want anything to happen to me, I won't do anything to you. But what if I am strong? What if I am proficient in all types of combat and can dominate most people? Then I would not care about what you can do to me because I know you can't. Hence, what compels me to concede to concepts like equality or individual liberty? I don't think I have heard a solid argument as to why human reason would see freedom for all over personal dominance as preferabale. Which is why I asked the question of atheists. It was in no way poking fun at people who don't beliece in a supreme being as I myself could hardly be called a "good" Christian. Its a sincere attempt to see how one reconciles beliefs that are perceived to be fundamental without adhering to some higher authority.

What does organic evolution have to do with being agnostic or atheist. I am an agnostic because the simple fact is barring faith and the entire collection of human religions in a historical perspective there is no real proof to the existence of a "god" or "gods" or the supernatural in general. I mean relatively speaking I hold as much faith in current ideas of a supernatural entity or thing as much as I believe in the tooth fairy.

Yet I am an ardent supporter of human rights? So in reality is it impossible for me to exist, or for that state of mind? Personally its just a feeling that I have that people should be treated with equality or respect barring them of course being a bad person such as a tyrant or something, at this point in time I am basically would say I feel inclined intrinsically to treat humans equally and with respect, which if I would have to put my finger on something as to why it basically would come from the idea that I cherish life, and in such typically view any mechanisms of death to this in a lesser light.

Again, giving the idea of nature and nurture absolute fact does not exist in either of those realms. So all you can do is take a philosophical picture of it, which is relative and subjective and frame it as some truth. The simple reality of it all is such does not work in real life. There are more then one or numerous occasions in which belief the divine has lead to atrocities in regards to human rights... So that in itself is not the answer, and again I am sure that its a more earthly or human issue that generates people having goodwill towards each other.

I mean would you cast off your protection as designated legally to be treated a certain way as worded in the constitution if you could then legally do the same to other people, moreover would you allow for people to not treat you as a human, but something less then that if you could in turn do the same?

To me you seem to want to obtain some naturalist perspective versus a supernatural one. Well, all I have to say to that is at the end of the day its people doing all of the actions, and of course reactions. People made the way of life, or perspectives, people do all of the human experience. If by chance the ability to make people perform in a certain way because of belief in something higher, say for instance Christianity, then such is as it is. Though I would suggest that humanity managed to make its way all over the planet, and to this day without such a belief being universal, and in many cases such a belief on its own then became twisted in many acts that were most deffinently against human rights as we would understand them.

You could ask the same question to those that believe in a divine power. What makes yours right and not mine? Why is your higher authority the right one? I think my god is the one to be "true". This is the point ive been attempting to explain. Honestly do you really believe that you would be christian if you were reared in another part of the world? I don't detest belief in divine beings, I think the pagan's have it right.. that spirituality comes from within and that gives you hope be it to themselves.

What if my religious belief in christianity is strong? Well I would go around thinking a whole lot of people are going to a very bad place, and perhaps even believe that everyone else that doesn't believe in my divine power is evil.

The reality is that many humans do not believe in the golden rule.. no spread of religion has stopped this or atheism. The best we can do is collectively attempt to make an environment that human rights are respected and as history has shown the religious and atheist foundation cannot create nirvana. Religious or not religious we can come together to attempt this. So in the end it's all human decisions.

Also you asked for the "philosophical justification" for human rights... well there it is "treat others as you would want to be treated". I don't care how big and strong you are, I consider myself stronger physically than many but it's simple logic to follow. Why do people need the fear of god to follow such a simple philosophy?



Yeah sure, it's possible. I think it's also possible that the muslim, pagan, neophyte and monk can say the same. Pick your superstition and make a wish, they all come true about the same 50/50 gods will be done. Can't you just skip the prayer and goto the gods will be done? It's all very confusing to me. I was a christian for 15 years and I gotta tell you my wishes still come true at about the same rate.



I just wanted to revisit this. It's the simularities that we have with other animals that answers your question. Going to your example with Lions, they do not allow other species within their circle and the large majority of species for the most part do not treat other species the same, just as humans don't. It's not a matter of superiority it's just a matter of survival. I believe differences in species cause the seperation, humans have had a hard time with each other throughout history even being a different color much less a different species. Just as a lion wouldn't allow a human into their den, because of how instinct dictates their survival, humans don't afford other humans that become a threat to our personal safety the same rights and do not allow other species within our "den" if you will and since we have always eaten meat it goes back to our survival instincts. In other words giving other species those same rights would be a threat to our survival and as of now wouldn't work, we have a hard enough time catching criminals within our own species, are we going to start trying to catch Lions that indiscriminately kill Bufallo now to? I mean we could just force feed the Lions nutrition they don't NEED to eat meat we can make them live without it. That doesn't make much sense so why would it make any more sense to force humans to do the same?

Obviously you and others on this thread are still taking this question as an affront to atheism...which is certainly not the case. We are talking philosophy here which means we all must be open to question our own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

In response to your first paragraph, there is nothing that says my authority is the right one...that's the point. How do we reconcile these beliefs such as freedom, equality, and justice that are based on possibly arbitrary grounds?

In response to the rest of your statement, I have already addressed this. Why should we strive to maintain the Golden Rule? What justification is there for it? Especially if a person of great power does not feel it should apply to them? You can't respond with "well the rest of the community will deal with him then" because that is NOT a philosophical justification for it.

We are not discussing the Golden Rule, but human rights. These two things are distinct.

There is no "affront" to atheism in this topic, there is only the very mistaken assumption that universal, inalienable rights exist, and that if they exist, they must exist in the mind of a supposed Creator. But there is no such thing as an "inalienable right," and certainly not one endowed by a Creator. For one thing, the experience of history shows that any given right is quite readily alienable. For another, there is no Creator.

Yet the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity do exist, and as I pointed out earlier, these concepts specify social