Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on human rights
Explain the importance of human rights
The rights of human beings
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars. Back in the day David Cameron blamed the human rights movement for perverting people’s morale and trumping the security of the public order. Shami Chakrabarti, a human rights activist, argued that the state suppresses human rights who are in the core of the civil society. Another scholar, Naomi Klein, argued that the real issue is that human rights and other moral concepts are wrongly distanced from politics, while in reality they are closely intervened. After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher …show more content…
authority to enforce them. Follows the “Myth of Deep Roots” which is supposed to debunk the notion that human rights have a deep historical base.
Moyn sees human rights as a concept that emerged in the 1940 after the UDHR and developed, as we know it today in the mid-70s with the worldwide implementation of human rights into the political agenda. In his book, “The Last Utopia”, Moyn argues that the movement for human rights succeeded because it managed to de-politicize itself. He calls it “last utopia” because it “evokes a vision of ‘another, better world’” and it displaced other utopian regimes (communism). However, Moyn claims that in recent times human rights have become a mediator in political disputes and have lost their non-political
nature. Naomi Klein shares Moyn’s views about the origin and development of human rights, but claims that the movement is closely intervened with politics. According to Klein human rights and neo-liberal capitalists complement each other in that they see something wrong with the status quo, but fail to take into account the reasons behind said status. Wendy Brown debunks the third myth – “The Myth of No Politics”. She argues that human rights are tools that takeaway power from the government and place it in the hands of the citizens. She also argues that people shouldn’t analyse the causes for human rights abuses but the effect. According to Brown this is an oversimplification of the issue. The author leaves the last myth, “The Myth of the Dangerous Dark”, to her own perception. She discusses how human rights abuses might seemingly happen in the dark, but in fact are organised in plain sight making it hard for people to see the truth.
Jacobs, William Jay. Great Lives, Human Rights. New York New York: Simon and Schuster. 1990. Print.
Every day, people are denied basic necessary human rights. One well known event that striped millions of these rights was the Holocaust, recounted in Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night. As a result of the atrocities that occur all around the world, organizations have published declarations such as the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the entitlement to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, freedom of thought and religion, and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of themselves be guaranteed to everyone, as these three rights are crucial to the survival of all people and their identity.
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
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
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
The essence of this essay reveals the definition of human rights and the politics of its victimhood incorporating those that made a difference. Human Rights can be seen as having natural rights, a fixed basis in reality confirming its importance with a variety of roles; the role illuminated will be racial discrimination against African Americans.
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 Violations isn’t an uncommon issue that humans have faced throughout history. It is seen during many events, documented in books, and is experienced even today. Throughout this semester the required texts has opened our eyes to more incidents throughout history where human rights were violated. In “Night” we view a more recognized human rights violation, the mistreatment of the Jews. In Buddha in the attic we see how the Japanese were mistreated in the US and in some instants by their own people. And now in “ Beasts of no nation” with Agu, for he is an example of how violent times were in Africa and the unfair treatment of children and their recruitment as soldiers.
John Tasioulas introduces the idea that human rights are explained by the morals that humans possess through understanding of human dignity. He explains that are three connections that human dignity has to human rights. The first connection presented is that human dignity and rights are rarely distinguished between due to having virtually the same standards in regards to them. The second that dignity is a starting point in moral grounds that human rights build off of. And last, that the idea that human rights are justified by dignity, saying dignity is the ideal basis for human rights. Tasioulas chooses to focus on the last point, that it is our morals that bring about human rights and that our morals come from humans having dignity. The key thing being that human dignity is something that all possess by simply being human beings there is no merit in achievement or by what legislation or social position can give us.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
Barria, L., & Roper, S. (2010). The Development of institutions of human rights: A comparative stud. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
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,