Is the idea of fundamental, inalienable human rights compatable with a materialist conception of reality?

Is the idea of fundamental, inalienable human rights compatable with a materialist conception of reality?


No. That's why Hobbes was the only good liberal theorist.

As long as material abundance exists. Which it does.

Pick one.


Is morality compatable with a materialist conception of reality?

Taken to its logical conclusion, a purely materialistic view of reality is nihilistic. From there, it can diverge in two paths as a person recognizes there's no inherent meaning to life: sociopathic, in which the person embraces that meaninglessness with an imoral behavior or just amorality; or humanistic, as the person decides to arbitrarily set his own altruistic meaning to life. In that respect, a well-conceived, left inspired chart of inalienable human rights fits the bill well enough. I keep insisting the left must frame morality as a natural manifestation of being human rather than a spook, and telegraph nonstop the message that anarchism and socialism aren't only matters of material self-interest, but of moral imperative.


thats dishonest and people can tell it's dishonest.

Can someone give me a rundown of Marxist ontology? There's apparently Heideggerian Marxism, but that doesn't seem to directly fit materialism.

Read Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution.


That's because humans have always formed societies. Study actual anthropology.

Inalienable rights in every instance I can think of where they've been taken seriously have been backed up by faith in a supreme being. In America they make no mention of the God of Abraham but they do say that all men are endowed with unalienable rights by their creator and in Revolutionary France they created a cult around the supreme being that centered around their virtues of liberty, equality, and fraternity. So I don't think that these ideas work with a materialist conception of reality, no.

Read Kropotkin.

I expected someone to tell me my idea is retarded, but not dishonest. Elucidate, please?

Codifying human rights is conceeding that material reality causes suffering.

it's vindicated by anthropological evidence today though


How is that not true? There's plenty about the material around us that causes suffering, are you stupid?


: )



this comrade gets it

The declaration (as in the historical event of them being declard) of human rights is a result of capitalism's tendency to violate them

That's funny because the Magna Carta was signed in the 13th century.


Note how there's a divide between rights that were ordained by God and rights that were ordained by governments. As soon as materialism and it's associated ilk became a larger part of the intellectual status quo, the idea that rights came from something beyond reality was abandoned and given legal substance rather than moral substance. Now everyone and everything needs rights.