The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on. The existence of deep philosophical disagreement need not be an occasion for alarm or despair; it could, instead, point the way to a fruitful method of proceeding. Thus, a theory of the character and value of rights might be expected at the very minimum to identify certain crucial issues— where philosophers are divided—and then to sketch out the main grounds of the positions taken. What we would be looking for is the crux, the hinge on which the issue turns, so that it might be resolved one way or the other. A theory arises on a body of problems; it has a context and ultimately reflects a limited aim. Theories of rights should be regarded, then, as partial explications or characterizations rooted in an attempt to resolve some particular crucial issue or other. It is tempting, but misleading, to regard the ensuing theories as concerned with the nature of rights; it is muc... ... middle of paper ... ...pute about what rights we have in the absence of a theory of what makes attributions of rights valid. We may be led to the issue also by a philosophical interest in understanding how and why a collection of rights fits together. The job of the kind of theory I am after is to provide a general organizing idea or principle that makes sense of talk of rights and explains how and why certain attributions of rights can be declared valid and others cannot. Since propositions of rights are a pervasive and contested feature of our political practice, the question of what they should be taken to mean is a central problem for political theory. Whether we hold them to be self-evident truths, or nonsense, or fictions, or something else, we cannot avoid taking some view of their sense if we are to give an adequate account or critique of our political principles and institutions.
The English Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England that deals with constitutional matters and sets out certain basic civil rights. This constitution was passed on December 16, 1689.The Bill was passed to declare laws and liberties of the people. Also the people wanted separation of powers and limits the of power to the king and queen. It guarantees the rights of enhancing the democratic election and to get more freedom of speech. No armies should be raised in peacetime, no taxes can be levied, without the authority of parliament. Laws should not be dispensed with, or suspended, without the consent of parliament and no excessive fines should imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. King James the 2nd, had abused his
Feinberg, J. “ The Nature and Value of Rights.” Journal of Value Inquiry 4(1970): 243
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
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
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
[4] Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
- These rights are natural rights, petitions, bills of rights, declarations of the rights of man etc.
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.
It depends on positive rights that we do not have against all other persons or groups, rights that arise only because we are joined together with certain others in a political society under strong centralized control. It is only from such a system, and from our fellow members through its institutions, that we can claim a right to democracy, equal citizenship, nondiscrimination, equality of opportunity, and the amelioration through public policy of unfairness in the distribution of social and economic goods (2005, p. 127).
There is the opportunity to find a middle ground where a Bill of Rights could be introduced confined to certain rights that are suited to judicial judgment over political matters. The rights of individuals are better protected by judges than politicians, who are affected by the desire to keep onside with public sentiment, for the fear of losing power. Judges however are concerned with the rights of individuals.
One problem with the appeal to rights as an argument is that it can often be countered with a conflicting right. Hare supports this by exposing some of the controversies in the abolishing
Kirby, M. 1997, ‘Bill of Rights for Australia – But do we need it?’, viewed 30 March 2014, < http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0>
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.
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.
Gewirth is attempting to show that there are such rights, and that respecting them does not conflict with the rights of others. Nagel, on the other hand, believes that some situations require the violation of the rights of one or another, and argues that absolutism can provide important criteria attempts for determining how to evaluate claims in such events.