Thoughts on human rights?
So i had to write a paper in philosophy. I was given the situation of a celebrity who needed to go to rehab. This star refused. Should the celebrity be forced to go to rehab? I was asked to evaluate Kant and Mill's reactions. I said that Kant would be against such force because of his nonconsequentialist views (ends do not justify the means). I was torn a little more by Mills. I said he would be for the forcible action due to the Utilitarian view of "greatest" happiness. This would be because the gain of the music. However, Mills also has his book "On Liberty". Do you think the musician's abuse violates the harm principle, and thus is worthy of action? I said yes, what are your thoughts?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
if nobody is causing any harm to anybody what right does anybody have to interfere with any ones life, you have no human rights and never have had just read history and that should spell it out for you war from day dot.
- 1 decade ago
Human rights don't exist in this world.
I should be allowed to go round kicking midgets because i don't like them. (I do like them...this is just as an example)
There are 2 problems with this
1. Me kicking someone else simply because I don't like them isn't acceptable...because apparently it just isn't...
2. Me kicking the Midget interferes with his human rights...human rights are a paradox...you cannot do what you want without harming another persons human rights...but then that goes against ur right to do whatever you want...
tbh philosophers try to rationalize things like this into greatest happiness or most useful or crap like that...we should be allowed to do whatever we want whenever we want but understand anything can be done to us back (Hobbes - the state of nature)