TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is all morality about human rights?

Is the whole of morality about human rights, or human rights the whole of morality? Are there other types of moral concern than human rights concerns? One can argue that morality is a human construct as we are the only species (at present) able to recognize and live by its existence. Thus, morality can only apply to human rights because we are the only species able to even enter into conversation with it in the first place.

With that in mind, do all moral considerations necessarily only relate back to the protection of these rights; so that concerns for animals or the environment are relevant only as moral concerns in terms of how they can directly/or indirectly affect human rights? Or is morality a universal concept that extends far beyond the remit of Human Rights and if so how can one justify such a position?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 19 2012: Morality is about good and evil, right and wrong. Now, in terms of morals, there are absolutes, and there are departures from one or the other. There are things that are considered by human beings(except the depraved who would see differently like the colour-blind) as totally horrible and unacceptable; there are also things that are condemned by some but equally defended by some others, things that have to do with individual/society's choices.

    Human rights is an abstract concept in the sense that it is open to numerous possibly confusing interpretations. Just like democracy wears different toga in various parts of the world and one can hardly tell what it actually is.
    Those who belief that the ideals of human rights would produce the same results as the pursuit of morality should be able to show, not merely through intellectual abstractions, but by pointing to a real society, which has produced a model 'human rights'

    Immorality (lies,bribery,corruption,infidelity,unpatriotism,greed e.t.c) are not acceptable as ideal in any human society; but a lazy man could appeal to his 'right' to have a share of the wealth of the diligent rich; a terrorist can defend hate speech with his 'right' to say anything he or she likes and a paedophile can defend his 'right' to pleasure. All the above depraved souls could defend their views and demands with the concept of 'human rights'.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: "Immorality (lies,bribery,corruption,infidelity,unpatriotism,greed e.t.c) are not acceptable as ideal in any human society"

      Did you say greed, the propellent of human society, is not accepted in any human society? The term "accepted" denote legality. Understand that morality is a personal, as opposed to collective, question. Consider abortion or gambling as a moral question - they are accepted.
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2012: That is why I pointed out in my earlier comment that in terms of morality there are absolutes and there are grey areas.
        If greed is a propellent of the human society, then we must be out of our minds to condemn Idi-Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Gaddafi and other dictators who have corruptly enriched themselves.
        And why do we bother condemning the shady bankers and multinationals for the financial crises?
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2012: That is why I pointed out in my earlier comment that in terms of morality there are absolutes and there are grey areas.
        If greed is a propellent of the human society, then we must be out of our minds to condemn Idi-Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Gaddafi and other dictators who have corruptly enriched themselves.
        And why do we bother condemning the shady bankers and multinationals for the financial crises?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.