Abstract of the book:
The book is an original work presenting an ethical philosophy based on equal human rights. The author argues that only people with equal rights can make social knowledge objective. Considering that people have never had equal rights, social sciences have not discovered the essential point of their existence. Social scientists need to embrace social teaching based on equal human rights. Such knowledge would uncover the values necessary for a good life. Establishing equal human rights will bring radical reforms to the political economy, which can build a prosperous society.
Authorities have always suppressed equal human rights, so people cannot live in a prosperous society. Society has interrupted the equal right to work by allowing the existence of unemployment. Unemployed people must accept poorly paid jobs to feed themselves. It causes the exploitation of workers. Equal human rights are supposed to bring justice to the economy by shortening work hours until unemployment is removed. It will raise the demand for workers and their salaries in the free market until exploitation is eliminated. Then workers will have greater purchasing power, and the economy will grow. Such a policy would solve today's socioeconomic problems and build good capitalism.
Equal human rights are supposed to improve the economy significantly. One day, every worker will be able to work at every public work post they want at any time. Every public job post will be filled by a worker who offers higher productivity, more responsibility, and demands a lower price for current work. It is nothing but a developed work market open at all times. Such an economy cannot be realized soon, but once people establish it, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, which will send capitalism down in history. This idea presents an enormous opportunity for socioeconomic improvement to build good socialism.
Finally, equal human rights mean that all people should have equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Everyone should get equal rights to evaluate others for whatever they do. Each positive evaluation should bring a small award to the assessed person, and each negative assessment should result in a minor punishment. Such a policy would make everyone work hard to please others and avoid hurting anybody. This has to create a good society. The equal evaluating power among people presents a new form of democracy, and the freedom of evaluation gives a new state of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy can be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy alone should be capable of building a prosperous society.
Ultimately, the book argues that nothing more than equal human rights is needed to create a good society, and nothing less can make it. Once people accept equal human rights, they will unconditionally create a bright future for humankind, as presented in the book.
The book is presented here: Book HUMANISM - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of...
"Removing" seems like too much. Humanism could help us to face some problems better, but it also depends on what kind of "Humanism" we have in mind.
Removing is precisely what the book offers, plus building a good society. The abstract clearly explains what kind of "Humanism" I have in mind. And if you are interested in it, the link to the book is right there.
A system based on everybody choosing the one official philosophy will not work because every person has a fundamental right to choose his/her morality. Consequently, rules must be objective. If they embody justice, meaning that every person gets what he/she deserves, then the rules will be accepted as fair and cooperation will follow due to a lack of reasonable excuses.
True fundamental rights have always been present but only recognized intuitively and seldom articulated properly. I hope I have corrected this in my paper "The Theory of Human Rights" published at this web site.
I have applied the theory to economic systems in my book "Governance for a New Era" (2020).
Dear Robert Stephen Higgins,
I agree with your principles and have found that equal human rights will implement all these principles. Equal human rights will give every person a right to choose their morality if it does not harms the morality of others. Equal human rights are the only way to create objective rules because authorities cannot do it. Equal human rights are the only possible way to embody justice, meaning that every person gets what they deserve, making the accepted rules (most likely unwritten) fair. It will bring cooperation due to a lack of reasonable excuses.
The problem is equal human rights have never existed, and I have defined what they should be in the abstract of my book https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364930729_HUMANISM_-_A_Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic_Study_of_the_Development_of_the_Society
What disturbs me in your approach is the idea that fundamental rights can be invented for a purpose. That is like inventing the rules for a club. The rights have validity only in the club. In my book "Human Rights, What Are They Really?" (2008) the approach was to identify absolute truths about the basic condition of a person among his/her kind. From there, a list of fundamental rights were derived by discursive reasoning. Such rights were objective, absolute and therefore universal. A corollary is that the rights are the same for every person, male or female. That is the result, not the starting point.
Dear Robert Stephen Higgins, I found your paper "The Theory of Human Rights," assuming it is similar to "Human Rights, What Are They Really?" Well, it is a good approach. However, claiming it is an absolute truth is a bold statement. I believe that only people together may approach objectivity. And then there is no point in it if people do not find a way to accept and implement it. This is the reason the UN declaration of human rights is useless. But on the other hand, equal human rights, defined as the rules for a club, can create a good society.
8 December MMXXII
That is a nice thought and a reasonable proposition.
The difficulty is that one needs reasonable people to participate in this extraordinary event--but you cannot find enough of them to do so. Religion couldn't. Hollywood movies couldn't, and now hope for our future is being put on the football players who kick a ball into a net for a goal!
Cordially...
ASJ
Dear Anthony, I think the main problem is the alienation authorities have imposed throughout history to preserve their interests. The system of education is 100% the function of this. Once people start thinking independently, they already follow the alienation imposed through generations. Mark Twain said, "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." In this case, the solution to the problems of humankind requires taking power from authorities and accepting equal human rights.
In my paper "The Theory of Human Rights" what claim do you think is not absolutely true? I totally disagree with Aleksandar's statement that "only people together may approach objectivity". I spent a career in engineering and had to objectively analyze issues by myself. For example, I was a material stress analyst at the Boeing Aircraft Company. Truth is discovered by evidence that points irrefutably to a truth or by discursive reasoning from already known truths. Multiple observers are not necessary.
As to implementation, I also wrote "Governance for a New Era" (2020), which shows how the Theory of Human Rights would be implemented in government.
Dear Robert Stephen Higgins, I am not a person who claims to know what is absolutely true or false in social sciences. I still firmly believe only society may define objective social relations. People have subjective interests, authorities especially not, and their subjectivity alienates them from objective reality. This is the cause of all problems of humankind. Social sciences have nothing to do with airplanes where 2 + 2 = 4.
Aleksander, Do you believe that every person came into the world by an indiscriminate process of Nature? If so, that is objective reality. What does that fact imply? As I see it, one implication is that all people have the same status as human beings and I don't see why that is not absolute. Having the same status, a further implication is that each person has the right to security from any other. By such reasoning I believe it is possible to deduce a set of fundamental rights that every person has.
The social relations defined by a society (whatever that really means) will necessarily be subjective to that society and not universal unless they are consistent with truly universal rights.
Of course, I believe in human rights, but the point is establishing "human status" to create a good society. Nobody has succeeded in it so far, no matter how human rights were defined. I claim that equal human rights will, besides bringing security to everyone, make a good society unconditionally. They would eliminate social evil and unconditionally create love, freedom, justice, peace, wisdom, and joy.
True fundamental rights are the same for every person and, I agree, would engender a good society because of the freedom implicit in rules based in true rights. However, such rights are already present and do not need to be fabricated. The problem in the world is that those rights are not universally known and respected.
Equal human rights are not understood otherwise, we all would live much much better.
9 December MMXXII
I tell all my friends in Europe to choose female physicians instead of male ones. One can be sure that the women doctors didn't have one eye on an anatomy textbook and the other on a football match when they studied medicine!
Cordially, humanistically,
ASJ
"Once people accept equal human rights, they will unconditionally create a bright future for humankind" is an extremely naive and therefore not very helpful assertion - equal human rights are but a first step at most.
Please note that in our case 'all the Foundation's initiatives are based further on the general principles of 1) the secular state; 2) a multicultural society; 3) liberal democratic governance; 4) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 5) gender equality and education for all; 6) fair trading and sharing; 7) non-violence and peace; 8) Common Ground conflict resolution*; 9) the care for health and environment; and 10) international cooperation and solidarity.'
* "First our common ground, then our religion or belief."
Dear John, if you have read more than the abstract's conclusion, you would not call me extremely naive.