Human Rights have developed over time and the rights of citizens and democracies have now become the focus of world’s debate. With the United Nations, it has become a global issue. Rights have existed throughout the history of man. One development of the concepts of the citizen’s rights and democracies came after the debate of the monarchy’s absolute power over a single nation. This absolute power is known as absolutism. After the debate of the king’s power, revolutions occurred and gave rise to democracies like the United States. These democracies granted rights to the individual citizens and political power, after the rejection of divine rights of kings. There were rights granted to individuals throughout history, but these rights were limited and the population was not completely at liberty with personal freedoms. With the promotion of democracies, rights have now become a global issue.
The concept of human rights has evolved through the years. It has grown into the focus of many governments and nations. Democracies have made rights of its citizens their primary concern in governing. There have always been rights and laws written into codes of government documents. There have also been other governments, which did not grant these rights to the individual. When monarchies formed in Europe after the fall of Rome, there came philosophies called divine rights and absolutism. This form of government is similar to a dictatorship. The rebellion against this form of government produced a new way of thinking. This new way of thinking developed a new form of government called democracies, which granted individual freedoms and rights to the civilian population. These proclaimed inalienable rights of man. In 1822, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “nothing… is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” (Kamenka vii, 1).
Early Laws and Rights
Before getting into the rights of kings and Nature Law, we must first look at the history of rights throughout man’s existence. It is not possible to explain every step in man’s existence pertaining to rights. Almost all civilizations had written laws or codes guiding its citizens in everyday life. One instance was the Code of Hammurabi. It is not viewed as humane today, but in its time, concepts of law and justice were established and it was an enlightened document. From its teachings we gather, “The strong shall not oppress the weak.” From this and other civilizations, the story of human rights begins and laws or codes protecting rights began to be established.
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
Specifically, the idea that man is endowed with certain liberties that were granted by God and/or nature was advocated by the Enlightenment thinkers. Many people took aim at arbitrary governments and the “divine right of kings.” John Locke in return offered principles of constructing a constitutional government, a contract between rulers and the ruled. In Document 7, John Locke in The Two Treatises of Government stated that men consent to enter society in order to preserve their natural rights such as life, liberty, and property. The government should protect people's natural rights and if not, then the people can remove their consent because the government derives its power from the consent of the people. John Locke wrote during the time period of the Enlightenment; therefore, his thoughts were based on the emerging idea of individualism furthermore man's inherent rights and powers. Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence (Document 9) that are all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain natural rights. The Declaration of Independence was written because of England's tyrannical rule over the American colonies thus, the citizens felt that their natural rights were being abused by the English government. Individualism was indeed formed in response to the skepticism of the Church as
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration Of Independence. 02 July 1776. What Thomas Jefferson meant by the terms “unalienable rights” and “self-evident truths” is that since all men are created equally, they are entitled to their freedom, to do such that makes them happy and that they own the right to live. Each and every person has the right to select or vote who governs him or her and also have the right to remove who is already in power. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (3). Each individual should not have their rights taken away from them to chose who they believe will lead their nation in the right direction and will act or show care and thought for their future. Jefferson emphasizes
The Bill of Rights and Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen are based on the same principles of natural rights; therefore each document is similar in protecting the people's natural rights. However, despite their similarities, their differences are apparent due to the social situations in which they were adopted. The Bill of Rights stood to protect the freedoms of each individual by establishing a democratic government. The French Revolution eliminated the hierarchy of class and established equality among men with the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. Several influences from past philosophers and documents assisted the frame work of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights and Citizen.
According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The
Refuting in a few pages most of the recent human rights historiography, Moyn contends that modern human rights discourses exploded as late as in 1970s as opposed to the eighteenth century as argued by Hunt and early periods as many historians have said. Indeed, Moyn makes an important distinction between natural rights, which is what he believed the enlightenment project was concerned with and modern human rights. Moyn understands natural rights to be deeply bound to a state-structure power (Moyn, 20) and these were the rights the American, the French and even the insurgents in Saint-Domingue were defending. Natural rights had to do with rights which were guaranteed by a state thus were closely linked to the question of citizenships. Human rights, as it is today understood by various international lawyers and the general public transcend the state. Today’s human rights are (in theory) truly self-evident because they are possessed by all humans, everywhere irrespective of any other variables and exist (again in theory) beyond the state (Moyn, 27). This new understanding of rights came about in the 1970s when figures such as U.S. president Jimmy Carter made use of them in a political platform (Moyn, 154). In this sense, as other world “utopias” had failed by the 1970s, human rights appeared to be the “last hope” of humanity for a better
Being the king of somewhere or half-god, does not give you the right to take other people's rights away. It doesn't make it okay to violate people against their will. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh takes his power of office a few steps too far. He does have specific and special rights, different from regular civilians, however he doesn't have rights that allow him to violate and harm other people. Gilgamesh has been accused of violating the morals of the young and abusing power of office. He has been rightfully accused on both charges and both charges are accurate.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
When the dogmatic kings of 17th century Europe started to abuse their own people’s rights and persecute the others, the people were forced to abscond. However, where would these people go, wherever they went in Europe they were persecuted. These people were in desperate need of freedom and that is exactly what they found in the New World. On the soil of America, the Founding Fathers constructed a Constitution and a democratic government so that no one else’s rights would be repressed. The Constitution had attached to it the Bill of Rights, which contained ten amendments that all protected the rights of Americans, from the freedom of press to the right to a fair and speedy trial. These rights were in turn protected by civil liberties or “… guarantees of the safety of persons, opinions, and property from the arbitrary acts of government” (McClenaghan 772). Under this new government, a democratic nation wa...
In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts” Bentham supports his conclusion that not only that these ideas are meaningless, but are also quite dangerous and that natural law is simply nonsense by stating the following reasons:
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
Human rights have been developing as a concept throughout the history of humans. Human rights have been present in several nations throughout history including in Ancient Greece as Natural Law, 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, 1776 in the American Declaration of Independence and 1788 in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. It was not until recently in 1948 that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was created as an international concept in response to the genocide of European Jews by Hitler.
Rights are generally considered to be a given, particularly those of the legal/ moral variety. These legal rights refer to the rights “ which are necessarily enforceable because they exist in law” (Vincent, 2012: 136), these laws that govern us are also referred to as ‘positive’ rights. Moral rights are the things we believe we have justifiable claim to but may/may not be upheld by the law, as not all are “codified in law”(Vincent, 2012: 136). Rights are further considered as “entitlements that belong to all human beings simply because they are human” (Nussbaum, 1997: 273), this ties in with natural rights as unlike those of the utilitarian variety, the group does not thrive at the cost of the individual, simply because they have more followers.
A general definition of human rights are that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to, simply because there human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ The thought that human rights are universal emerges from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the conservation of human dignity- that respect for individual dignity is needed regardless of the circumstance, leading to the notion that human rights are universal. The earliest form of human rights can be traced back to European history- the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen which says that men are born free and equal in rights.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,