The basis of human rights is largely that we fought for them. That's why they seem arbitrary. And why animals lack them entirely in the strictest sense.
Similarly democracy is just an analogy for battle. The bigger group wins, ideally with less blood shed.
No one should be under the illusion that democracy does anything other than try to minimize disquiet (it doesn't select the best by any other metric leadership necessarily). It does not even matter how informed the population is.
Back to the point. Why do we have human rights? Basically they are the things that were either fought for directly or got in at the same time.
They are now expanding but I don't think many realise why they were started and the expansion might reverse what won't is the things people are willing to pick up arms over
It's also interesting to look at the theories of human morals like Kohlberg's model. Very few humans reason with the post conventual moral stages.
Similarly democracy is just an analogy for battle. The bigger group wins, ideally with less blood shed.
No one should be under the illusion that democracy does anything other than try to minimize disquiet (it doesn't select the best by any other metric leadership necessarily). It does not even matter how informed the population is.
Back to the point. Why do we have human rights? Basically they are the things that were either fought for directly or got in at the same time.
They are now expanding but I don't think many realise why they were started and the expansion might reverse what won't is the things people are willing to pick up arms over
It's also interesting to look at the theories of human morals like Kohlberg's model. Very few humans reason with the post conventual moral stages.