Universal Declaration of Human Duties

Originally posted by Misoir
Article 2: Just as all men and women are entitled to the fruits of their labors they too must assist those who have not the means to help themselves.

[...]

Article 19: All men and women must be willing to take care of themselves and own up to their responsibilities.

If everyone is willing to take care of themselves and own up to their responsibilities, there is no need for others to help them. If everyone is helping them, they have no need to take care of themselves and own up to their responsibilities. The latter happens daily with people who abuse the welfare and disability programs. They know others will take care of them so they have no reason to take care of themselves.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how if I am entitled to the fruits of my labors, that it means I also must assist anyone else. If I must assist them, then I'm not fully entitled to the fruits of my labors. If I'm fully entitled to them, then I don't have to do anything with them that I don't choose to do.

It's not a bad list, but the use of the word 'must' makes me wary.

All people should respect each other. Every person is a being of positive light. We should help others when ever possible and have compassion to others.
All religions teach this and the great leaders of there religion were able to communicate using wisdom and common sence.

reply to post by Misoir

Please explain to me where I stated that you must do something?

Duty:

1. An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion

See thread title.

Note that every single one of your articles contains the word must. You appear to be attempting to impose a series of "universal" obligations upon "all men and women." Not only are you telling robwerden that he must do something, you are telling every human being in the universe that they must do something.

Originally posted by Jenna

If everyone is willing to take care of themselves and own up to their responsibilities, there is no need for others to help them. If everyone is helping them, they have no need to take care of themselves and own up to their responsibilities. The latter happens daily with people who abuse the welfare and disability programs. They know others will take care of them so they have no reason to take care of themselves.

Hi Jenna,

In my opinion what he is getting at is that if everyone would adhere to these principles, the answer to your concern is that only those who legitimately need help would need help so you don't have to worry about charity abuse as it would not be charity but voluntary common sense good principled acts that would negate the need for anyone to be forced to do anything by a higher power.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how if I am entitled to the fruits of my labors, that it means I also must assist anyone else. If I must assist them, then I'm not fully entitled to the fruits of my labors. If I'm fully entitled to them, then I don't have to do anything with them that I don't choose to do.

It's not a bad list, but the use of the word 'must' makes me wary.

If this utopia were to exist it would guarantee just that, you would be able to truly enjoy the fruits of your labor. But is "must" be voluntarily mandatory for it to work. Everyone has to adhere for it to work.

Call me a pessimist but this would not work because too many people would try to game the system thus it would never have a chance to work. However as a concept, it's absolutely workable intellectually, but we are just not up to it as a species yet.

Kudos to the OP for an interesting thread. S&F

Best

Ziggy Strange

In addition to my previous post,

If you're worried about those who are truly unable to take care of themselves, following my suggestion, families would start to grow again as people could afford to have children. Family units could then take care of their mentally handicapped and those unable to work due to injury. The few who would have no one, could be taken care of by those who are born to nurture. In the past, it has always been the church that fulfilled this role. In truth, any group of people who at birth were given extra desire to take care of others could fill this role.

It's the meddling that has been done that keeps the social structure from working. Our species isn't perfect. We're trying to make it that way through changes and tweaking and adding. It's like messing with a carburetor. We just know the engine can run smoother, so we keep giving it more gas instead of turning the knob back. We just know if we give it a bit more gas that everything will stabilize. We have no concept of going backwards. So we keep twisting knobs. Eventually we're twisting knobs that don't even have anything to do with function out of sheer frustration! Why won't this engine run smooth! Then the engine starts to shake violently and we realize that we have lost track of which knobs we have turned and what levels they were at before! Now the engine won't run at all and we have to completely rebuild the damned thing just to get it to crank again.

The moral of the story is, that you have to learn where to draw the line and say good is good enough and not to expect perfection out of an imperfect being.

LordBucket nailed it when he defined Duty.

It is a sad commentary on society that any of us should feel it necessary to make such a list.
That said, many Americans need to be reminded of what moral behavior is.
I agree with nearly all your points but the right to property is a bit sticky - America has been systematically robbed over the last 87 years through the Federal Reserve. Just who have been the recipients of these trillions of dollars I do not know but collectively they are the one trying to establish a New World Order. They have no right to their ill-gotten gains.

Mis, I applaud you for taking on such a task.
I can see the qualities in you that make a great humanitarian and I know you will make a difference in the world. You are on the right path.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Misoir

 

Please explain to me where I stated that you must do something?

Duty:

1. An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion

See thread title.

Note that every single one of your articles contains the word must. You appear to be attempting to impose a series of "universal" obligations upon "all men and women." Not only are you telling robwerden that he must do something, you are telling every human being in the universe that they must do something.

It is totalitarian.

I wonder what the OP would have done to those who not not perform the duties he requires of them, were he the dictator in charge of his utopia.


*I think promoting the removal of freedoms or violating of rights should be disallowed.

We all know there are limits to free speech; Just as you cannot use speech to slander or libel or incite violence, you should not be able to use your speech to attempt to limit the freedoms or violate the rights of others.

Originally posted by ziggystrange
In my opinion what he is getting at is that if everyone would adhere to these principles, the answer to your concern is that only those who legitimately need help would need help so you don't have to worry about charity abuse as it would not be charity but voluntary common sense good principled acts that would negate the need for anyone to be forced to do anything by a higher power.

The problem is that not everyone would adhere to them. Humans are selfish, greedy creatures. Too many of us want to get as much as we can for the least amount of effort. If a way to get everything they need and then some with absolutely no effort on their part is readily available, they will and do jump at the opportunity. This greediness is such an ingrained part of human nature that I doubt it will ever disappear completely. So while the idea of a Utopian world sounds good in theory, it will never happen in reality. Or maybe I just have very little faith in humanity..

Misoir Huxley ushers in a brave new world using the pretence of liberty and freedom.

Article 21: Misoir MUST stop posting every thought that occurs to him.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
S&F from me. I agree with and would be willing to do just about everything on that list. Good on ya, sir!

which part are you unwilling to do!

I have to ask

Oh good grief people. It isn't about "requiring" anyone to do or follow these, rather seems to me to be a code of ethics or better yet a code of chivalry....or have we lost that vision as well through the muck and mire we see spewed forth every day?

The Code of Chivalry

* Live to serve King and Country.
* Live to defend Crown and Country and all it holds dear.
* Live one's life so that it is worthy of respect and honor.
* Live for freedom, justice and all that is good.
* Never attack an unarmed foe.
* Never use a weapon on an opponent not equal to the attack.
* Never attack from behind.
* Avoid lying to your fellow man.
* Avoid cheating.
* Avoid torture.
* Obey the law of king, country, and chivalry.
* Administer justice.
* Protect the innocent.
* Exhibit self control.
* Show respect to authority.
* Respect women.
* Exhibit Courage in word and deed.
* Defend the weak and innocent.
* Destroy evil in all of its monstrous forms.
* Crush the monsters that steal our land and rob our people.
* Fight with honor.
* Avenge the wronged.
* Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause.
* Fight for the ideals of king, country, and chivalry.
* Die with valor.
* Always keep one's word of honor.
* Always maintain one's principles.
* Never betray a confidence or comrade.
* Avoid deception.
* Respect life and freedom.
* Die with honor.
* Exhibit manners.
* Be polite and attentive.
* Be respectful of host, women, and honor.
* Loyalty to country, King, honor, freedom, and the code of chivalry.
* Loyalty to one's friends and those who lay their trust in thee.

And so I ask.....what is wrong with these?

I would like to know what reality many of these posters live in? Do they not understand that either they take these morals upon themselves or the government will force you to do these things? I would prefer citizens be the guardians of our fellow man and not have it legislated to us by a governmental body.

Quit calling it Authoritarian, Communism, Liberal or other statist beliefs. Individualism is a farce as it is simply impossible to accomplish as society would inevitably collapse. There are absolutely no requirements to this while I did say you must I used it in the phrase must be willing. Which means that everyone should be willing to do these things, not necessarily that everyone has to do these things.

Society prior to the Hippy movement believed strongly in community and self-reliance. Family was strongly encouraged and once people became individualist during the ‘60s the government was seen as the way to protect society thus removing the responsibility from the individuals, the community and the families.

Originally posted by Misoir
Do they not understand that either they take these morals upon themselves or the government will force you to do these things?

I live in a world where the government and society take it upon themselves to dictate right and wrong on a daily basis. One persons morals are not necessarily those of another person, yet many believe that everyone should hold the same beliefs and morals they do. No one person holds a monopoly on morality, nor should any one person or group of people attempt to force their own morals on everyone else.

Which means that everyone should be willing to do these things, not necessarily that everyone has to do these things.

In writing it is imperative that you use words that clearly convey your meaning. By using the word 'must' you conveyed that they were things people have to do, not things they should do. It's hardly reasonable to take offense when people's reactions are based on your own word choice.

Very worthy thread worthy of discussion. As Plato observed...

“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens."

I believe the OP was simply trying to create a modern code of ethics, that might fulfill the same function as the ten commandments, but relevant to all peoples and with a place in serious political discussion. This is a worthy endeavor.

I differ in that I believe these duties should be implemented in the legal code. I have come to realize that idea of "natural rights" is false, there are no entitlements only contracts.

This is because the reality of interdependence is inescapable. Even the hermit in the forest owes his life to his parents and those who protected him, owes much of his knowledge to those thinkers and discoverers who came before him, and his livelihood to nature and/or the animals. This is multiplied to the Nth degree when one lives in the global community today. This morning you may have brushed your teeth with a toothbrush from China, ate fruit from Mexico, taken a shower in water treated by workers from India, used electricity generated by coal from America, read news on ATS which is operated by people from the UK and elsewhere, which probably purchased a web domain from Google which is based in California, etc.

But why does this invalidate natural rights? Believe it or not I had this epiphany after reading Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto, which is first and foremost an argument for absolute liberty (from technology).
For example he states "For many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than long life or avoidance of physical pain". In other words the advances of medicine (for example) are not worth the inevitable indignities that an integrated, technological society brings. Kaczynski's mistake (aside from murdering people of course) is to assume this began with the industrial revolution. As far back as the first civilizations there were social classes, often crystallized into formal castes (slaves, untouchables, monarchs by divine right, etc.). Such a system inevitably leads to indignities and limitations on freedom, even for the monarchs, who risked revolt and decapitation if they completely ignored their subjects. Thus we see that limitations on freedom have been with us as far back as cavemen bringing back enough food for their cavemates and cavechildren so that cavesociety may continue. The closest you can get to absolute freedom is living alone in nature, but then you're just substituting the artificial constraints of community life for the harsh reality of solitary life, providing your own food, water, shelter, care when ill, safety when incapacitated; neglect these "duties" at your peril. Either way you can't do whatever you want whenever you want.

So what's the point? The point is that rights without duties (entitlements) are illusions. The social contract isn't between the government and the people, it's between you and every human being (and non-human for that matter) past and present who has contributed to your life. Many of the injustices of the world can be attributed to individuals not giving as much as much as they have received, instead proclaiming themselves to be self-made men and women (*cough* Ayn Rand) as if they lived in vacuum. This is why I believe that rights and duties should be formalized into law.

Some questions I can anticipate:

How does one quantify not fulfilling a duty to defend another person's life?
Well I didn't say it would be perfect, on a case by case basis by a jury of one's peers overseen by a NON-CAREER judge perhaps?

How would you punish those who failed to fulfill their duties?
Depending on the grievance, give them a chance to make it up to society, or banishment.

This is obviously a work in progress I appreciate constructive criticism and feedback.

Might as well end with a quote...

“A hundred times a day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depends on the labor of other [people], living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. I am strongly drawn to the simple life and am often oppressed by the feeling that I am engrossing an unnecessary amount of the labor of my fellow [people]. I regard class differences as contrary to justice and, in the last resort, based on force. I also consider that plain living is good for everybody, physically and mentally.” – Albert Einstein

It might simplify things to state and obvious truth:
That which is good for society is good for the self.
The native Americans (and other aboriginal peoples) have the concept that life is like a spider web and we are all interconnected. To break one strand is to weaken the surrounding strands. So it is in human interaction - the injury of one person directly affects those near them. If a family member is badly hurt we have to give our time and money to help them out - thus weakening ourselves. The inverse is also true - by helping others we ultimately help ourselves.

It really boils down to what is our concept of self.

By extending our "selves" we realize this wider connection with life and act accordingly.
Not only do we make an effort to help family and friends but our communities and larger world.
Many have forgotten this and only act in self-interest which weakens the bonds to those around us.
Families have disintegrated and are taking communities along with them.

There have long been programs instituted by the government to weaken family and community bonds. Even the tax codes work to the benefit of the unmarried. CPS often steps in and kidnaps children away from their families on the flimsiest of pretenses. The media subtly works to promote the "me first" mentality as well. Why? We are easier to manipulate and control singly than we are as units. This is why they try to make us greedy and suspicious of others, They promote fear and apathy, helplessness and dissonance.Racism is another great tool they use to keep us collectively at each others' throats instead of watching the government with a critical eye.

We can turn these trends around, We have far more power than we realize if we see ourselves in a wider sense and act to help those around us. If we do not begin to move closer as people we are truly headed for the new dark ages - the chaos we imagine in TEOTWAWKI can happen, make no mistake about it.

On a personal note I found I was much, much happier when I acted unselfishly and helped others. The bonds of kinship with family, friends and community grow stronger with every selfless deed you do.
When humanity can begin to act as one giant family it will be time to extend ourselves into the natural world and recognize it as extensions of self too. The earth is the source of all life, it created us and sustains us all. Again, this must be internalized and brought to fruition as well.
In sum, I believe this to be true: You will reap what you sow.

Wow, I am amazed there is an argument here. The whole idea of the OP is: "See a need and fill it", "Compassion". If you commit to taking care of the elderly in this world, that means others commit to taking care of you whe you are old. And yes, I believe passionately that personal choice ...ALL of them...should remain personal choice and that the Supreme Court should not fell obligated to pass judgement, but rather to have the boldness to say : We throw this out as it is personal choice and therefore the law will not impose." Who can argue with the OP???? Amazing.

Oh and by the way, I have starred, flagged, and subscribed to this thread. And i apologize to the OP for not thanking him/her foe starting this thread. I sincerely hope people will read it before voting tomorrow.

To the OP: Thank you for a drink of water in the desert.

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Misoir

 

Nice thread. I would change "Duties" to "Moral Responsibility" myself because that is truly what it is.

Moral Responsibilities of citizens.

It would work a lot better but it would require changing too much of the OP.

edit on 10/30/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

Unless you are one of those who think that only one moral exist, you can't impose moral to others.

Originally posted by Misoir
So as all men must have their rights so to they must have their duties. For the continuation of Human Rights whether you deem given from god or from man, human or natural, as we must have our rights to be free we so to must have our duties to remain free.

The coming shift will be from "God-given rights" to "Human Rights". My rights were given to me from my Creator, not from any man, any government, nor any political document.

Your list of Rules has a lot of potential for violence, what with having a duty to defend everything. More of this drawing lines in the sand, or like a cat pissing to mark territory. Why not just learn to share? Why not just apply one single rule that could solve everything---the "do unto others" rule.

"It might simplify things to state and obvious truth:
That which is good for society is good for the self. "
______________________________________________________________________________


Of course! And that which is good for the "crown", the "government", the "whatever ruling body may be" cannot be good for the self. The "crown", the "governemt", the "whatever etc", is simply acronyme "TPTB". Hence power is the corrupting agent, and anethema to the individual, to freedom, to a working society. I have seen that in my own life experience, and I believe given the opportunity it could become a new model for society to line by....and with.

So to whomever it was that quoted a Code of Chivalry and service to Crown, Governement, etc. : z-z-z-z-z-z that's waht we've been doing lo these many years....and we are the witnesses to it failing. Thank the gods it's days are numbered.
I'm voting tomorrow to reclaim what is rightfully ours, as I did two years ago.

Thank you again OP.