On Morals and Human Rights

It seems to me that there are two ways to live. You can either live a "moral" life, or you can support human rights. These two don't seem to be compatible and I'll try to explain why:

One of the best compliments that has ever been paid to me was when a friend of mine described me as one of the most open-minded people he knew. Coming from this particular friend, it was extremely flattering because his entire life and the people he surrounds himself with can only be described by that same term. This compliment got me thinking about how open-minded I really was and to what I could attribute that open-mindedness. These thoughts brought me to a simple conclusion: every bit of knowledge I gain about the world helps me understand it better and makes me less afraid of the things I find within it. Those words don't actually begin to describe all of the facets to my reasoning though. Like a series of lines broken up by gradual angles, it is a very detailed surface that looks smooth from a distance. Let's take a closer look.

In my state of having an open mind, it is my belief that a blanket policy of human rights (For a definition of human rights, refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) is absolutely necessary in order to assure the best opportunity for all people to live the best life possible. While that statement should coax a resounding, "DUH!" from my readers, it is important to identify the opponents of human rights. Who would ever oppose human rights? It isn't like there are people who sit around and think, "Human rights can suck it." The opposition usually comes about through realizing that total freedom gets in the way of a higher calling. Basically, anyone who puts ends ahead of means is bound to overlook the rights of their neighbors in order to achieve their goal. Examples include religions that hold the desires of a god above the desires of individual men (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and political states that impose collectivist or exclusionary measures on their populations (socialism, communism, corporatism). The fact of the matter is that human rights get in the way of most "big pictures." One man's utopia is borne of the restrictions he must impose on others from disrupting his plans.

Human rights are admittedly a very humanistic construct. They sprout up when people embrace their independence and bloom when they realize that everyone else is just as good as they are and that we all deserve the same basic freedoms in life. Any belief that we must sacrifice some amount of freedom in order to fulfill a "greater" good is decidedly limiting because of this simple fact: not everyone is going to agree on the worth of that ultimate conclusion. Common manifestations of "greater" goods are: morals, nationalism, and equality. We can see these manifestations at work in Israel, where Palestinians are being evicted from homes they've lived in for generations simply because the Jewish state claims they own the land (despite the area being classified under international law as a conflict zone). Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, North Korea, Iran, China... on it goes where we see collectivist or religious states oppressing the rights of its people. On it goes that to embrace human rights is to embrace individual sovereignty.

And so, a word about morality: submitting your own individual freedom to what are believed to be higher morals is in fact not very moral at all. There is nothing moral about entrenching yourself in a culture of behavior, as your actions are expected, forced, guilt-driven and ultimately par for the course. I would argue that it is far more moral to act as an individual under no imperative. Morals can really only exist when an individual is free to choose to do good and they are under no penalty if they decide not to. Additionally, associating actions with a higher power relieves one of responsibility, which is unfortunate for someone seeking to be moral, yet convenient for one who cannot resist their negative impulses.

If morals are not compatible with human rights, what can we use to figure right from wrong? Science is amoral, which is what makes it such a good guide. When you listen to science, you understand that everything is natural. Perversion, retardation, addiction, homosexuality, depression, skin color, disorders and fetishes; they're all natural. They happen through understood processes in reproduction, development, stress or trauma. Understanding this means, foremost, that it makes no sense to hold such traits against anyone. Human rights and science go hand in hand.

Throughout history, we've seen the advancement of human rights progress from the abolishing of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the first legal gay marriages, and throughout the time line, through every milestone, science has been working in parallel to enlighten our dark prejudices with knowledge. Those pushing back against these advancements are the religious and the tyrannical, determined to have the world work within their ideals. As the reliance on old wisdom gives way to new discoveries, we find ourselves understanding each other better, our sense of compassion growing. Kinsey made it OK to be sexual. The Pill gave women more control. Evolution puts us all on an even playing field. There is no quarrel that science cannot diffuse with the reassurance that our petty differences are minuscule to the grandeur for the universe we live in. You can either hate your enemy of two millennia or you can accept your place on a time line of 14 billion years.

"Morals" are no longer necessary in a world where knowledge provides more comfort than mythology. It is time to embrace the rights of every human to exist, live, work and love.