Can one have human rights if you don't respect other human rights?

Question

no_good when you put someone to prison is taking many rights. What is the difference between a caged dog and a human in prison? They both are angry. You feed them both. They both go to the playground for only a couple of hours. They both can have limited toys insede the cage/prison.

Answer 1

Do you mean one human right vs. another? or miss one, you have none? Or does it mean if you ignore the rights of others, you have no human rights?

The first one is the crux of the human rights listing. What do you include and what do you leave off? Or how do you phrase it to include or exclude? Where does right leave off and privilege begin? Are there greater and lessor rights? Do some rights apply in one situation and not another because it become meaningless?

The seconded is not a serious issue. In view of the problems set forth in the above, no nation has them all anyway.

The third one is easy to answer. They apply to all individuals. If you ignore one, you have ignored human rights all together.

Answer 2

Sure, there's no logical inconsistency with that.

For instance, we still believe (at least in the US) that murders, rapists, etc. still have some rights, despite a total lack of respect for other people's rights. Specifically, we don't torture these deviants (though maybe we should, if you believe in a social contract theory of ethics: if one party breaks the contract, then all bets are off); they still have a right to legal representation; they still have a right to food and shelter, etc.

But if you believe that there are no "natural" rights and that all rights are created from a collective pact that we call society, then you can make an argument that if a person breaks that pact (thereby choosing to exit society and revert to the state of nature where anything goes), then that person forfeits his/her rights.

RESPONSE TO YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

Right, we put both people and animals in cages and do similar things to them both. But people are "moral patients", i.e., they're capable of being moral and therefore deserve to be treated morally (to oversimplify the issue). Dogs, however, are not capable of acting morally (they do what they do; no moral judgment can be applied), and while they deserve to be treated *humanely*, this is different than treating them with moral respect.

So this gives rise to a fundamental difference between prisoners and dogs in a shelter: we can (i.e., permitted by law) euthanize/kill dogs without having as strong a reason as we would before we execute a prisoner.

But there's perhaps still a baseline of minimum rights that all sentient beings (incl. many animals) are entitled to, if you believe in natural rights. Again, with animals, we just call it humane treatment, but with people, it's called ethics.

So you're right in your observation that we seem to treat some people and animals the same, which might naturally cause you to ask whether these people (prisoners) have less rights than normal citizens. Yes, when we put people in prison, we take away some of their rights...but not so much that a dog would have more rights. (At most, they have the same rights, depending on how many rights are taken away from the prisoner.)

Anyway, apart from the question of whether there are differences between human rights and animal rights (some people think (some) animals should be treated the same as people...it's not that far-fetched an argument), the distinction here doesn't seem to have any bearing on your original question.

Answer 3

To answer the initial part to your question. Even if you don't respect someone else's rights, you still have human rights.
There is a little confusion on your behalf. Human rights are the the things you are allowed to do without exemption...
Eat, drink, procreate (although sometimes I question this last one... but the is a different can of worms) etc... These are all human rights.
When you mentioned people in prison having "toys"... That is a privilege they are given. Such things can be taken away from them, (solitairy confinement).
CyberNara

Answer 4

Yes, and the USA's constitution has defined it that way.

To give two clear examples, just because a person is in the process of committing a crime does not remove from them their constitutional rights. They might be stealing a car, but this does not, for example, mean that the owner of the car has the right to kill them. Self-defense arguments only work in cases where a life is actually threatened, not in the case of auto-theft.

A second example, and one that is bringing a great deal of emotion to the American scene is the case of illegal immigrants or undocumented residents, whatever you wish to call them. Just because they are in this country without appropriate papers does not mean that they are denied the rights of the constitution, even if that means the legal residents of this country have to pay for it. Right now in Los Angeles County, for example the sheriff's department has suggested that there are 7,000 illegal immigrants in jail. They are neither deported nor are they treated differently just because they are illegals. They are still given a lawyer when they need one and they have the right to speedy trial, good treatment in jail, reasonable bail, and every other right that is guaranteed to every American.

Answer 5

All people live inside their own heads.If we have respect for our own dignity,if we respect ourselves with an unshakable faith that nothing outside of our own thoughts and emotions can touch us,Then not being in Prison,no,not anything can take away our Human Rights.Those who may for some inadequacy in themselves try to humiliate another, can be stopped dead in their tracks by the one who knows, and regards his own worth as untouchable. The ones to be pitied are those who are caged in their own minds by fear.Fear and insecurity create a human rights abuser,they can not respect themselves,ever,in this state of being.

Answer 6

no, if they are not universal then they are privilages.

human rights as they appeared in the un decleration are probably better thought of as a series of duties that we each have to one another.