Human Rights Post Apocalypse

except it's not purely post apocalypse. You changed the title, sleepy, and that someone changed the meaning i was trying to convey. We need to identify what our rights are for today, if we are to test them against an apocalyptic future.

Can you say that every so called right that exists today will still exist post apocalypse? Will rights recognized during the apocalypse be recognized in our current so called "modern" world?

The idea of "rights" is a social construct; therefore, when society falls, so will the concept of natural born rights or whatever you'd like to call them. Post Z-day, there will be one law: survive. How you choose to do so will impact you and those around you in various ways, but the ideas of rights, morality, and right and wrong go out the window when our environment changes so drastically.

Remember, people are animals. As much as many of us would like to separate ourselves from our distant evolutionary relatives, the fact is, we come from animals and are still animals. When the time comes to live or die, instinct will take over regardless of any notion of right or wrong one used to have.

As far as rights existing: they currently exist, because our government says they do. As soon as the government can no longer enforce that, they do not exist anymore. Those deficient in morality will use that to their advantage as they please. Right and wrong are relative from person to person, after all. Laws are simply the collective sense of right and wrong that emerges from a community of people. Most of society finds it wrong to kill others, but a murderer has no problem taking the life of someone else.

In short, right and wrong should not immediately factor into the decisions you make post Z-day. That's a luxury to be considered after you're out of harm's way and can take a second to think of the repercussions. If someone is trying to kill you, modern society says defend yourself until you can flee and let the police handle it. Come post Z-day and someone is trying to kill you...there's no question that the laws of nature take over: kill, or be killed. Imprisonment, in my opinion, is a waste of your resources and a threat to your safety. Same with slavery. In both cases, you're feeding someone who would probably like to kill you. Given the opportunity, they probably will.

Tl;dr: Decisions will not be about right and wrong; instead, they will be cost-benefit analyses.

I don't believe in a creator, but I do believe in human rights. I think all sane, normal people have an innate sense of what is right or wrong. I don't believe that most people have to be taught that killing another human is bad. Smaller stuff I think there are degrees. Is stealing wrong? Is stealing to feed your family wrong? is stealing a loaf of bread from a bread factory wrong if you're going to die of starvation in ten minutes?

That is a scary way of thinking. By your reasoning, you could argue that since there is no government you should go ahead bash open the head of every person you come across to steal anything they have of value, as long as it doesn't hurt you. With that same reasoning you could torch someones dwelling because you might get some benefit of distraction out of it.

Are you really sure that just because there is no one standing over you with a big stick to beat you with (government), that it's okay to do whatever is best for you, at the cost of others?

I'm not entirely sure that people are born with a sense of right and wrong. I think it's taught by those around us. Think about it. As children we a taught "don't hit", "share", and "don't take things that aren't yours". I think we have to teach each other about right and wrong. I think a good example would be Lord of the Flies. Fiction, i know, but it's got a strong contrast to a potential EOTWAI situation.

With you example on stealing. Say that you did steal for a "noble reason". Would it still be right if that person you stole from died of starvation?

Ack, still can't edit my posts, so i have to make another one. (eye roll)

It sounds like both of you are effectively saying that 'might makes right'. Whomever has the most force or power says what is right or wrong. Currently that's the Government. We only have rights that the government says we have. During ZA day or an EOTWAWKI situation, whoever can bring the most force down says what is right or wrong.

Wait, what? That's not at all what I intended to say; I meant that you need to be prepared for dealing with the worst of what people may and will turn into. I also meant that the consequences of one's actions need to be considered thoroughly on a deeper level than just right vs wrong.

If you bash open the head of everyone you come across, you're likely to be killed by someone who may be watching you through a sniper scope. If you try to torch a house you don't know anything about and it has inhabitants that can shoot back, they'll probably shoot you as soon as you start trying to light that fire.

As far as other people are concerned, the first attempt should always be toward mutual cooperation and gain; that's best for everyone. That coincides with what we perceive as "right" because it's the most beneficial in the evolutionary sense. However, there will be those who are only seeking their own gain and will take from you to obtain what they please; it's these people who deserve little mercy, if any. It's likely also these people who do need the "big stick" to keep them in line; whether it be laws or the hand of God, some people simply do not obtain a fully mature outlook on morality. Psychology has this to say about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_devel.... Out of six stages, most people end up stuck at Stage 4. Thus, without a society to guide them, many are likely to lose track of their sense of morality.

In terms of psychology, WD is right; right and wrong are learned behaviors. While those of us in the US believe in the idea of unalienable personal freedom, people other countries, particularly those under a theocracy, have no such sense. There are still people being stoned to death for violating what many of us perceive as backward religious doctrine, after all.

Rights of whom? We have active members from Balkana, philipines Japan, Russia, America, Australia, new Zealand, Korea and a few others I forget. The rights bestown on them differs from our rights. Do we simply base it off Geneva rights? Or united nation view of rights to.try and explain the rights of the world that will unify from an apocalypse? Hopefully.

I think all we will be left with is our own morality. Which in most cases is what holds us back. I really do agree with the points of both sides, but reality is, unless your part of a community expect no human rights, there will be rules and law vs morality of humans.

We need to identify everything as it is today to see what it will become post apocalypse. This isn't a site for political discussion of todays society, it's a discussion of preparing for, surviving the apocalypse and living in the dystopia afterwards.

These are two prime examples of what WILL happen and you try to twist the words into...

and

Is like saying you are hanging from a cliff and you either need to cut the rope and survive or hang their for life as the other cuts the rope and survives before you can. Who is in the right if the problem was cause by a third party who had long since fallen to the earth? The person who can cut the fastest obviously wins.

Human instinct is to survive. I would kill a man for doing wrong things to my family under my own roof, now or post apacalypse, and if I fail to kill and maim for life instead, in todays society he is in all rights to press charges against me, in post apocalypse I would correct my aim. Does he have the right to live? It may be a medical or temporary psychological condition that pushed him to do the things.

I would do what it takes to feed my kids and wife, especially post Z-Day. And if that mean killing a man who refuses to trade water, or wants to trade water to have his way with my wife or daughter, I'd kill him with little guilt. How do I know he doesn't have kids and a wife waiting for him to return home? How do I know he doesn't have slaves tied up somehwere he was returning to and they will now starve to death? How do I know that he hasn't killed people in their slumber to collect that water to survive himself?

At what point are you trying to draw the line of human rights in post apocalypse? Where do we put the wall up to prevent people crossing the line of morality of western civilization?

Ah, my mistake. I interpreted what you wrote incorrectly. Thank you for clearing that up.

This articulated my argument better in one short sentence than in the whole of my words on this subject.

There lies some of the moral dilemma i am struggling with. Does it really come down to the laws of nature and survival or can the societal laws we hold be preserved and have any value in a lawless world where only the strong survive.

(ok, i would like to finish this, but i'm feeling unwell, i'll come back and finish this later)