Humanities desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 28

Human Responsibilities

One big and important thing, issue, and matter people often talk and campaign about is human rights.

Rights. What about responsibilities? Human rights. What about human responsibilities?

What are human rights' activists' answer to this question? What are human rights organizations' answer to this question? What are the answer of the people who originally developed and thought up the idea of human rights to this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is discussed at the Wikipedia article titled Moral responsibility, and probably several others. The question of personal responsibility is a major focus of many schools of philosophy; you can find such threads in the article I just linked. --Jayron32 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One issue where I often think of this is with population control. In areas of the world where there are regular crop failures and periods of starvation, those who choose to have a dozen kids, with no corresponding food security, seem seriously irresponsible, to me. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Negative and positive rights, Natural and legal rights, Positive liberty, Negative liberty. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite common complaints that the emphasis is all on rights these days and not on responsibilities, I believe that people across the political spectrum do in fact believe strongly in social and individual responsibility. This is one of those political truisms which is so often said to be 'unspoken' that it is, on the contrary, ubiquitous. StuRat, you might wish to recall that in areas with regular starvation, people may have more children in order to ensure that at least some survive to the next generation, and that there will be enough hands to work the land. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That logic only applies if they aren't able to cultivate all the land due to labor shortages. If they currently have enough people, and had fewer children, then the death rate from starvation and disease and war would go down, and they would still have plenty of people to work the land. And, if for some reason the population ever fell below the level needed to cultivate, they could always import people from many of the overpopulated areas nearby. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "responsibility" mean depends of philosophy. VHEMT believes it is the responsibility of an individual not to have child and save the Earth from the disruptive creatures (as they put it) called Homo sapiens, social conservatives believe in social responsibility to prevent moral decay and social harm, liberals believe in social responsibility to redistribute wealth, libertarians believe in individual responsibility, Marxist-Leninists believe in class responsibility to protect oppressed class from oppressor class, religious fundamentalists believe it is the responsibility of every person to follow their religious codes and promote their religion, etc. etc. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with nearly all those things is that they all have to do with what they want someone else to do. The libertarian view has to do with individuals taking personal responsibility for their own actions, rather than trying to blame someone else, as happens all too often. In Richad Armour's It All Started With Columbus, a satirical history of the US, he has quizzes at various points. His final quiz question has the ring of seriousness: "How can you become a better citizen? What's stopping you?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duty to rescue and Good samaritan law are also interesting; countries like France have laws enforcing responsibilities to each other, whereas in the US you don't have to help a child who gets trapped in into your machinery (see Duty to rescue) and have no responsibility to brake if a blind man steps out in front of your car[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driving laws are different in each state. Some states (New Hampshire, for one) require cars to yield to pedestrians at all times. In general, trying to help someone who's seriously injured can result in screwing things up worse and/or lawsuits. That's why the advice usually is "call 911" and let the experts take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As BB has hinted at, your statement doesn't seem to be supported by your source. Your source discusses whether or not you have a duty to stop a blind man stepping in front of a car. Unless I missed it, it doesn't discuss whether or not you have a duty to stop (if you safely can) if it's your car. That's a fairly different thing because it may be you have some resposibility as a driver to attempt to avoid of collision, perhaps even if other parties have sole responsibility for the initial risk of collision. In other words, in the case when you're driving, it's not about a 'duty to rescue'. Instead it's about your responsibilities/duties as a driver, which may include avoiding collisions and avoiding running over people (and also to pay enough attention that you become aware of any risks of such in a resonable amount of time), regardless of whether you caused the initial risk. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting aside is whether any countries have suicide legislation which require a random person to intervene but without any general duty to rescue. So for example, you're not generally required to stop a blind man stepping out in front of a moving car (without a pre-existing relationship or somehow having caused the blind man to act in that way) but if the blind man says 'life isn't worth living, good bye cruel world' and then begins to step out you may be responsible if you don't try to stop him. Most countries mentioned in our article only prevent aiding, counselling etc and perhaps with laws protecting those who intervene, rather then specifically requiring intervention where it's possible (countries where it is a requirement seem to be ones with a generaly duty to rescue, see also suicide) but it's possible some exist. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every right implies a dual responsibility to respect others' claims to the same right. For some of the more sophisticated rights in, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, upholding such rights often involves fairly expensive duties which comprise unfunded mandates in many signatory countries. 70.59.24.75 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, every right is tied to a responsibility. And indeed human rights activities do campaign for obligations towards certain responsibilities. XPPaul (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French cities with significant population Muslim African francophonie arab

Which cities of France have significant population of Arab Muslims from Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, Mauritania and Muslims of Africa from Mali, Chad, Niger, Djibouti, Comoros, Senegal, Guinea and Burkina Faso? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.48 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define 'significant'. And unless geography has undergone a complete revision since I last looked at an atlas, Algeria, Morocco,Tunisia and Mauritania are in Africa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab world is generally considered to consider the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania (and Egypt). See Arab Africa - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All major French cities have non-trivial immigrant populations from the countries you list. --Xuxl (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our Marseilles article: "Because of its pre-eminence as a Mediterranean port, Marseille has always been one of the main gateways into France. This has attracted many immigrants and made Marseille a cosmopolitan melting pot." The breakdown of population by religion gives: "Major religious communities in Marseille include Roman Catholic (600,000), Muslim (between 150,000 and 200,000), Armenian Apostolic (80,000), Jewish (80,000), Protestant (20,000), Eastern Orthodox (10,000) and Buddhist (3,000)." Alansplodge (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this Eton College statement mean?

An excerpt from Eton College's statement of Spiritual Values: "College Chapel dominates the Eton landscape both physically and spiritually. ... And so the school requires boys to experience it, whatever their persuasion..." What do they mean by "requires boys to experience it"? Is there some thing they do there with required attendance, or (and I get the feeling this is it, but am asking because I'm not sure) are they just saying every person has to see the building there and know its religious significance, whether or not that means anything to them? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though attendance of certain religious services are mandatory for the school's students to me, no matter their religious persuasion. Omg † osh 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The college's Religious Provision page goes into a little more detail on the requirements. In particular it says "As well as the regular chapel services, there are numerous optional opportunities for worship.", suggesting that the regular chapel services are not optional. I get the feeling that students are required to attend services on a regular basis, although not necessarily required to believe what is said there. Maybe one of our Old Etonians will see this and be able to give some more information - I sense that the school's own website expresses the subject in slightly unclear language. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Th+e "Guide to Independent Schools" website (page here) says "Compulsory chapel attendance unless parents request otherwise"; at a guess, that's a relatively modern opt-out. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoenis Céspedes travel documents

The Oakland Athletics and the Seattle Mariners played a regular-season Major League Baseball game in Tokyo this morning. One of the Oakland players is Yoenis Céspedes, who defected from Cuba. What sort of international travel documents would someone like him be able to use to travel overseas, to Japan and then later in the season, to Toronto? I would imagine the Cuban government would have revoked any Cuban-issued travel documents he might have had. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. State Department may, in cases like this, expedite the proper residency papers for being a legal permanent resident of the U.S. Once those papers are established, whatever Cuba has to say on the matter is moot; the U.S. State Department can issue the relevent passports/visas whatever (such documents essentially mean the U.S. is "vouching" for him); it doesn't really matter where he was born. The article Asylum in the United States may be relevent for you to read through. In the section titled "Application for resettlement by refugees abroad" has a bit on Cuba. --Jayron32 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba could always claim he committed some crime, and try to extradite him. However, I doubt if many nations regularly visited by US baseball players have extradition treaties with Cuba. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link at Extradition Treaties the US has a treaty with Cuba so they could have asked for him back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks StuRat. See this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] [3] [4] [5] the treaty was pre-1959 and has never been used since the communist takeover. As per the Guantánamo Bay case, I presume the US considers it still in force but it doesn't sound like Cuba does (although they may be willing to sign a new treaty). I didn't check the US-Cuba treaty, but many treaties have exemptions for political offences and even in the absence of that a number of treaties and similar such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights impose limitations on countries extraditing people [6], Luis Posada Carriles. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the CNN link says there is a Cuba/US treaty. But I doubt there much chance of it being enforced and the US/Cuba one in Article VI does exempt political people. Article V is interesting as well if they were to make Yoenis Céspedes a citizen quickly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. and Cuba signed a new agreement in the early 1970s promising to either return or prosecute airplane hijackers from the other country; not sure if anyone was actually returned... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Posada Carriles was never extradited. --Soman (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that if there were any doubts about Céspedes' immigration status, likelyhood of being refused entry to Japan or Canada, or likelyhood of being arrested and extradited back to Cuba, then he wouldn't travel. He wouldn't be the first sports star to be left at hoem due to travel problems - Dennis Bergkamp was often left at home due to his fear of flying. Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the actual travel document he'd use in lieue of a passport, it would be a Refugee travel document issued by the USCIS. Most governments issue those to people who are granted the refugee status in the country, as well as to those who have a permanent resident status and are either stateless or cannot obtain a passport from the country of their nominal nationality. (The US Refugee travel document application form is quite explicit in that it's available to refugee and asylees [there is a legal distincation of some kind between the 2 groups], as well as to permanent residents who have achieved the PR status via refugee/asylee status.) Those things are internationally recognized as travel documents, and one can apply for a visitor visa or admission with such a thing instead of a passport. They used to be colloquially called "White passports" at some point, although of course they are neither passports nor white. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]