args

The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Unjustified

Thank you to Pro for making this debate. I will argue against the position that "The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Unjustified" I will offer the definition of unjustified as "not shown to be right or reasonable." I will take "the west's claim of universal equal human rights" to refer to the collectively accepted body of documents and theory which is most readily embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also seen in other national and international charters. Rebuttal Pro's argument seems mostly focused on whether Aboriginal Australians have a lower IQ. This is largely irrelevant to the topic of the debate. The key connection pro makes between his argument and the topic under debate is his claim that: "This is not because the West embraces and upholds a human rights discourse whose fundamental principle is that all men and women ought be treated equally under the law, but because it consequently assumes it is THEREFORE the case that all men and women are biologically identical; that there are no intrinsic genetic differences between people or groups of people, and any scientific study that demonstrates otherwise is "a priori" false." Pro's claim is false. I will base this on three points: 1) His claim is completely unevidenced. Like the entirety of his post, Pro makes very definite claims about things but leaves them completely unevidenced, offering not a shred of proof. 2) The claim is absurd. Following Pro's logic, people who believe in human rights would refuse to believe that someone born with a genetic condition that left them completely legless is just as capable runner as a person born without any such conditions; that a person born braindead will be as intelligent as a normal person or that a male is just as capable of having ovaries and a womb that allows them to give birth as a genetic female. These claims are totally absurd but they are what people would supposedly believe if they did think "there are no intrinsic genetic differences between people". It is absurd to claim that people believe such a thing. 3) The actual evidence does not support it. For instance in the same Western nations that support human rights, it is very common for them to recognise that people can be genetic differences between people which result in drastic effects. Take for example the disability living allowance in the UK, where people with disabilities will be be paid money in recognition of the fact that is harder for them then it is for most people [1]. This is directly contrary to Pro's claim. Furthermore if you examine the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or any other similar document [2][3] you will notice that they make no mention of enforcing anything like what Pro suggests. The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Justified What Pro seems to have misunderstood is that the western conception of human rights is founded on the knowledge that that are a whole range of differences between humans. However, the point human rights makes is that despite the differences of whether you're poor or rich, male or female, black or white, smart or dumb, atheist or Hindu - there is a shared commonality of humanity which qualifies people for certain rights and protections. To whit: - It is wrong to torture people for having the wrong colour skin. - It is wrong to deny someone the right to vote for having a certain gender - It is wrong to deny someone a fair trail due to them not reaching a certain metric of intelligence This does not mean it is wrong to acknowledge any difference as my opponent claims - if that was what they were trying to do then the UCHR could be a lot shorter - "Everyone has to treat each other as if they were all perfectly equal in every way, no matter how stupid that is". Instead it numerates specifics rights and protections that apply, not some limitless infinite protection. This was done to the drastic pain and suffering that has been incflicted by others in the past and recognises that there is a certain basic level of decency that should be accorded to all humans. Human Rights don't ignore our differences, they simply focus on the shared humanity. The development of human rights was brought about specifically to fight against injustice and suffering, spurred on by the likes of the Holocaust to try and ensure such events never happen again. Pro's claims are wrong and Universal Human Rights are entirely justified. [1] https://www.gov.uk... [2] http://www.un.org... [3] http://www.echr.coe.int...