Human Rights

According to the old definition, human rights are endowed by God to his human creations as a consequence of his human creations sharing in his image and likeness. It entailed the rights of acting in conformity with one's conscience and pursuing such goods as happiness/good fortune and eternal salvation, whatever THAT means!

This definition is clearly outdated, however, since not all human cultures sprang from the traditions of the Hebrew scriptures (in particular, the Torah), from which the old definition is ultimately derived. On the contrary, there are cultures and associated religious traditions such as the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Taoist the Shintoist, the Zoroastrian, the many forms of animist traditions, etc. all of which have a totally different conception of the human person.

Indeed the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, having a common source in ancient Hinduism, hold that the human person is an illusion, that there is ultimately no reality behind the sense of self apart from the one, so, there being no articulate meaning of "self" or "subject," there clearly is no objective meaning to anything like "human rights."

The only reliable source of common agreement that can hold these traditions together and indeed critique them is natural science. Natural science recognizes that there are human behaviors that are naturally indulged in, and that need no teleological explanation or justification, all of which must presume the axioms of a given religion. Apart from the basic principles, then, that naturally occurring human behavior needs an outlet and that human beings should go along if they want to get along, any such behavior that causes no immediate harm to anyone should be sanctioned by society. Furthermore, the matter of ultimate harm is purely a matter of speculation and beyond the capacity of objective science to determine, unless of course reliable causal connections can be established through well controlled experiments.

Although it must be admitted that not all human rights can be discerned from such simple and undeniable rules, societies can and should benefit from the wisdom of their greatest thinkers. From gifted academics, such as Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, and Hans Kung, to enlightened leaders such as Margaret Sanger, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro, one can expect newer and more innovative ideas on how to harmonize the naturally competing interests of various groups.

Finally it must be admitted that human rights are naturally limited by the scarcity of resources on the planet. Human beings clearly do not have the right to the profligate use of these resources, and they most certainly do not have the right to beget a lot of children who will grow up to be yet more resource consumers. In point of fact any objective observer will quickly come to the conclusion that these resources should be spared for the use of those who can truly appreciate them, namely the intelligent, the educated, and the socially refined. and a pox on everyone else.