This House believes in fundamental human rights

Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.  

Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'. 

Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition.[1]

[1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101

There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure. 

All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there.[1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852.[2]

[1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997

[2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995

The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain  is far from clear-cut.[1]

[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.

Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.  

Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'. 

Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition.[1]

[1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101

There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure. 

All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there.[1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852.[2]

[1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997

[2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995

The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain  is far from clear-cut.[1]

[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.

If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew[1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms.[2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA[3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights[4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights.[5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.

[1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.

[2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000. 

[3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.

[4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.

[5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010.

Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact.  Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures.

Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other.

It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary.

Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18^th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21^st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24^th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18^th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21^st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations.[1]  Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful.

[1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006.

The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places.