CFI Book Club: "Inventing Human Rights" by Lynn Hunt

So, I have written about an organization in Toronto called the Centre for Inquiry in several posts and am happy to tell you that I am now the Director of their Ontario branch. I am very excited and will continue to write about and analyze the many lectures that we put on year round.

One cool part of this new job is helping organize a book club. I was asked to pick the books for November and December. Everyone is welcome to read the books and then come to the Centre for a discussion. You can find out more info at our website: cfiontario.org


The book for November is: "Inventing Human Rights" by Lynn Hunt.

12 copies at Toronto libraries

This comprehensive work traces the development of human rights from its conceptual roots in the Enlightenment to its full expression in the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hunt begins with a wonderfully detailed lexicographical survey of 18th century uses of rights language ("rights of man," "natural rights," "rights of humanity") to show the many currents that led to the first modern declaration of human rights, the Bill of Rights.

We will be meeting on Thursday, Nov. 26th at 7 pm at CFI, 216 Beverley Street, Toronto, ON.


The book for December is: "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell

228 copies at Toronto libraries

In this best-seller, a staff writer for The New Yorker weighs the factors that determine good decision-making. Drawing on recent cognitive research, Gladwell concludes that those who quickly filter out extraneous information generally make better decisions than those who discount their first impressions. The author of The Tipping Point (2000) cites the implications for such areas as emergency situations and marketing, plus some notable exceptions.

We will be meeting on Thursday, Dec. 10th at 7 pm at CFI, 216 Beverley Street, Toronto, ON.

I hope to see you at there!

Quote of the Day!

"The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived."

-Bertrand Russell, from the Preface of "Why I am Not A Christian and Other Essays on Religion" (published in 1957)

Michael Shermer Lecture "Why People Believe Weird Things"

I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Michael Shermer at the University of Toronto last week and thought I would post the shorter more concise version of the talk that is posted on ted.com. He is a wonderful speaker because he talks like the audience is a group of close friends and brings some passion and life to talks that can sometimes be, well, boring. Click here for a profile on Michael Shermer. Enjoy!

CFI Lecture: Human Rights as a Modern Myth

I went to another CFI lecture back in April called "The Modern Myth of Human Rights" with David Stamos, a professor of Philosophy at York University. The title of this lecture really struck a chord with me as I plan to pursue a career/further education in the specific field of Human Rights. And if, as he suggests in the title of his talk, they do not exist, they are a delusion and a myth, then what am I doing with my life? After thinking about this for awhile, I started to hypothesize what Mr. Stamos would talk about in his lecture and I thought I knew what he would argue. However, as you will see, I left the lecture feeling as though he was just lost in semantics.


Here is a summary of the lecture:

• There are two types of 'rights': conventional rights which are man-made and can be given and taken away, usually by governments and institutions. Since there is no world government or institution there are therefore no universal human conventional rights. The second kind is natural rights which are rights people are born with and which cannot be given or taken away. This is the type of rights people are talking about when they refer to universal human rights (rights one has because they are a human being).


• We see written examples of these natural universal human rights in such documents as the Declaration of Independence (all men are born equal; rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; equal and inalienable rights of the human family) and then later on in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (right to marry, join unions, free education, freedom of religion, etc.). We see an obvious increase in details about what exactly constitutes a human right. So, what is a human right and who decides what is and what is not?


• The idea of universal human rights stems from memetics, meaning the spread of cultural ideas. Ideas have us, we don't have them. One example of a meme complex would be religion as well as universal human rights. Just like religion, human rights are a virus of the mind, a mass delusion.


• To explain this, look at our cultural history. Do we see universal human rights in Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, etc? Not really, in these works men are seen as higher up than women, there was human slavery and on and on. (Here, Mr. Stamos proceeded to give many examples from the Bible illustrating violations of supposed universal human rights - rape, murder, etc.)
  
• We first see the idea of universal human rights in literature during the European Enlightenment of the late 1600's. Thomas Locke was the first to write about life, liberty and property and that men are all born equal (obviously a huge influence on Jefferson). The idea of universal human rights was born (invented) in a particular culture at a particular time: 17th century Europe. However, we somehow all believe that other cultures 'discovered' human rights on their own and this is what is called presentism. Presentism basically means looking at history through a present-day lens and seeing what we want to see. This arises from wishful thinking, ethnocentrism and gerrymandering (picking and choosing certain ideas or passages for a particular purpose).


• An example of presentism and ethnocentrism in relation to the idea of human rights is the notion that Syrus the Great (539 BC Persian philosopher) was the first real proponent of human rights. However, he was actually a proponent of conventional human rights, ones that can be given and taken away (by a government or institution). This is an example of viewing the past, and historical figures, through a modern day 'universal human rights' lens.


• The meme complex of 'universal human rights' piggybacked on the meme complex of 'democracy' during the Enlightenment.


• What are human rights and how many are there? Anyone can claim anything is their inherent right, for example a bodybuilder saying that using steroids is their innate human right.


• Humans are 1 of millions of species on the planet, so why do we have rights and not the others?


• When did human rights begin? Did neanderthals have human rights? What is a human and what is a person?


• Universal human rights comes from 'creationism' and 'essentialism', the idea that God created everyone equal.


• Basically, universal human rights talk is arbitrary.


• So, what are we to do if we give up the idea of universal human rights? Well, one alternative is "negative utilitarianism". Utilitarianism is the maximization of happiness and pleasure which John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham propounded. These men were social reformers who called the idea of natural human rights "nonsense upon stilts". Peter Singer introduced the idea of "negative utilitarianism" meaning minimizing pain and suffering and not just for humans. He suggests that people can fight for minimizing pain and suffering without claiming universal human rights are being violated (ie. sweatshops, women's oppression, etc.). If you make injustice visible to the world you can fight it, simply based on the ideas of empathy and sympathy.
• All sentient beings are morally equal, meaning humans and animals.
• He is not offering any concrete solutions here, just offering another way of looking at things. The key here is to promote and encourage critical thinking.

Now, admittedly, I came to this lecture already a little upset and prepared to defend 'human rights' to the end. However, as I sat there listening to this man talk I saw the benefit of listening to someone with opinions different from my own. It is true that many lectures at CFI are given by people who think and believe the exact same things as the attendees and it is more of a display of mutual praise and pats on the back. Of all the main tenets of CFI, including secularism and humanism, I think the absolute most important is 'freethought' (a fancier word for critical thinking). This center is the supposed hub of the freethought movement and with this lecture that statement was true. I really enjoyed being challenged and offered a different perspective. That is essentially my main impetus for creating this blog, and for that I thank David Stamos for his lecture.

Here are the things that him and I agree on: universal human rights are a modern invention. They were cemented into modern history with the creation of the United Nations and are continuously adjusted. Universal human rights are a list that a group of people wrote one day and that people have since clung to in order to justify or condemn certain actions or behaviour. People can claim property because it is their 'right', they can claim a woman because it is their 'right', they can sell drugs, beat their kids, walk around naked, etc. because it is their innate human right.

Why are humans so privileged? Who says we are born with any rights at all? When we come out of the womb, is there a letter in our tiny hand informing everyone of our inherent human rights (I will cry as loud and as long as I want, it is my right) ? We are championing and throwing around these words in order to justify anything and everything.

With that said, the human rights movement has been an incredible galvanizer for good (gay rights movement, women's suffrage, etc.). So here is where we come to the points that Mr. Stamos and I disagree on:

Mr. Stamos outlined the many instances in the Bible where obvious human rights were being violated. Passage after passage he read aloud trying to prove a point, however I don't think it was made. Obviously, in that time (2000 years ago) there were many violations of what people today call 'human rights'. And it is those exact instances throughout our history as a people (slavery, imperialism, war, torture) and in the culmination of World War I and World War II that we finally said enough and created a statute that would try and reduce, even stop, the incredible atrocities we have inflicted on each other since the beginning of time. Yes, human rights are a man made invention, but they are a necessary one. It is our way of trying to reduce the pain and suffering in our world. Which is the exact definition of 'negative utilitarism'. This is where I feel Mr. Stamos is simply caught up in semantics. If the main purpose of 'universal human rights' and 'negative utilitarianism' is to reduce pain and suffering, then who cares about the words we use to get to that end? Universal human rights talk may be arbitrary (yes this I agree with), but it is all for the purpose of making this world a better place to live.

The idea and power of 'human rights' is not going anywhere, but the main thing I need to take away from this lecture is to not just accept ideas (memes) at face value. I was a strong proponent of human rights and fought for things simply based on that idea, but I need to look deeper. People are not born with any rights, they are just born. We have created this entire system based on the idea that somehow being born a human we are more righteous than all the other creatures we share this planet with. Maybe we need to start treating each other (animals, plants and all organisms included) simply based on the idea of kindness and love.

It Isn't So Easy

In an earlier post I let everyone know about how to get involved with rallies across Canada protesting our role in the war in Afghanistan. This in no way indicated that I was in support of or opposed to the rallies and their message, I simply went as an observer. Here is what I saw:

To be entirely honest, I went to this rally as a supporter of ending the war in Afghanistan. However, this is very different from being a supporter of the withdrawal of Canadian forces from the country. Let me explain.

A few years ago, after I graduated from University, I was allowed to sit in on a meeting of Professors, Deans and the Minister of Education from Afghanistan (I guess I was representing one of the 'student' voices). The first thing that struck me about the Minister was how eloquent, articulate and calm he was. He addressed many pressing issues with such clarity and seriousness that I was fascinated just listening to him. But, the one part of the entire presentation that really stuck out for me, and that has stayed with me these past few years, is when he said something along these lines:

"Yes, it is true that there is still much violence in Afghanistan, but I wish you knew about the great progress we have made as well. Our education system is improving as is our infrastructure. But, we still need your help. We need the security that Canadians can provide in order for us to achieve our goals. If you leave us, everything will be lost."

And there is the point exactly. Yes, I am against the 'war' in Afghanistan when we are talking about solving a problem with bombs and guns. But, no, I am not in support of 'bringing the troops home' as that would be entirely catastrophic. Not at one point in this rally did someone calmly say that Canadian soldiers are a part of a network, including development and governmental agencies, all with the same goal of trying to rebuild a shattered nation. And yes I know the arguments that it's 'all about oil', arguments about national sovereignty and intervention and creating more terrorists than when the whole thing started. But to be so anti-military doesn't do anyone any good. The military has changed so much in the past few decades and they are, now more than ever, a part of the peacekeeping process. Don't get me wrong, I would throw every weapon in this world into a bottomless pit if I could, but the fact is: we need soldiers to provide security alongside NGOs and government agencies.

This idea is clearly outlined in the incredible memoir about the 1994 Rwandan genocide titled "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Romeo Dallaire. I strongly encourage anyone who is adamantly anti-military (as I was) to read this book. Not only will it provide a different perspective (a conservative, military man's point of view), but it recounts in great detail the atrocities that can occur when the world turns its back on a struggling nation.

When I volunteered in India last year, a fellow volunteer (an older man from New York) said something that stuck with me. He said, "Say there is a special path that you like to take every morning because you love the trees and the rocks and the stream. But then someone decides they want to build a fence through that path, well then it's no longer the path that it once was." He was a little pompous, but basically he was talking about how I tried to 'change' things in India. I organized a group of volunteers to clean up a stream that ran through the community that was full of clothes, garbage, everything. The main impetus for this was that I am a humanist. I don't believe in lines, boundaries, borders, nations. This water comes from the same Earth we all share and as a member of the global family I had a duty to do something.

People will say that that wasn't my place, but here is the question that plagues me, as I am sure it does many Canadian soldiers, every day:

Is it better to do something than to do nothing at all?

Back in Business

Hello friends,

I am SO sorry for the long absence. I was without a computer and/or internet for the past 4 months, so it has been incredibly difficult to maintain my blog. However, I am now in possession of a laptop and access to the interweb and we have many, many things to discuss.

Glad to be back,
Pam

"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than to Curse The Dark" (K'Naan)

skeptic (noun)
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

cynic (noun)
1. a person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. a person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

I look at the world with a pair of critical eyes, but I need to remember not to focus so much on the ugliness that the beauty is forgotten.