Theme: Sovereignty

Lets first state that the question itself is stated uses improper loading and framing. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. )  A better phrasing of such a question is:

“Is the Human Rights Movement an extension of Western Imperialism?”

1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation.  Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy.  Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior.  So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest.  In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order.  The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors.  And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism

Lets first state that the question itself is stated uses improper loading and framing. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. )  A better phrasing of such a question is:

“Is the Human Rights Movement an extension of Western Imperialism?”

1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation.  Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy.  Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior.  So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest.  In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order.  The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors.  And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism