6 ms·

Humans rights change over time and are different in different places. Currently its not a human right to be able to marry an ai personality or a machine but it

• kerkeslager 1mo ago
  There's a fundamental disconnect going on here. You're talking about what humans believe are human rights. I'm talking about what human rights are. The right to privacy is a human right, even if no government on the planet actually respects or formally recognizes it. The right to privacy was always a human right, it's just that formal protections of that right have become more necessary as technology and society have advanced, resulting in more and more violations of that right. In 1791 the prohibition of unwarranted government search and/or seizure was close to adequate to protect the right to privacy, but with recording devices in our pockets, pervasive public surveillance, metadata tracking, and corporate involvement in surveillance, the 4th amendment no longer adequately protects the right to privacy. This doesn't mean the right to privacy is new--the right to privacy has existed as long as humans have had a psychological need for privacy. It just means that new attacks on the right to privacy require new legal and technical protections against those attacks.
  • TZubiri 1mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law It's an orthogonal concept to human rights btw, there's human rights laws, and treaties, both of which are positive law. Similarly, there's laws proper about almost every non human-rights subject (say investment vehicles), and there's natural law about every other subject (say investment vehicles). Another concept I would recommend looking into are courts and legal process. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you think happens when your belief of what natural law is, clashes with someone else's vision. The body of procedural law tends much more towards positive law out of necessity, otherwise it would devolve into recursive disagreements as to what the process (and the process for handling process disputes(and the process..)) is, a disregard for natural law and respect for the positive law as a sort of convention arises out of practicality at least in the process, arguably leaking into actual substantive law. Jurisdiction might be a good next step to tie it into this thread's topic, what happens when there's a dispute as to whose rules and courts should judge a matter? The importance of positive law in this matter is mostly accorded by courts unanimously, and the borders of countries are written in constitution in blood. We tend to err towards not rewriting those as they are 'expensive'.
  • gunsle 1mo ago
    You’re literally arguing nonsense. You have no way to define what a “human right” is outside of some kind of moral framework that others have no obligation to subscribe to. “Human rights” do not exist. The word right in this context literally makes no sense without some kind of moral underpinning, which again circles back to requiring some kind of moral framework (religion for example) that only work as far as a group of people agree on. There is no such thing as what “human rights are” there are only things certain groups of people have decided to agree is a “right” within their community.